[lit-ideas] Re: Denis Dutton RIP
- From: Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2010 11:36:06 +0000 (GMT)
1. He's alive. Myers is alive.
2. From the comments:
'I still remember what he said at the end of the first class that I took from
him. “In the years to come, if you don’t remember anything about this class,
remember this: Make sure that if you take a stand on something, leave open that
possibility that you could be wrong. Your hypothesis must be falsifiable. Don’t
be afraid to be wrong.”'
All of this is highly Popperian of course, except the use of
"falsifiable" which betrays, I fear, a misunderstanding. All propositions (with
content) have negations and if their negations are true the propositions are
false [this is even so in the case of tautolgies, for 'a = a' is false if it is
true that 'a = non-a']. In this sense any proposition (with content) has a
falsifier [its negation] and is in this sense "falsifiable". In this sense it
is also true, because unavoidable, that "Your hypothesis must be falsifiable" -
it cannot be otherwise because it almost invariably rules out logically
possible states of affairs, and even when it is itself a logical proposition
[e.g. 'a = a'] that rules out a logically impossible state of affairs [e.g. 'a
= non-a'] the proposition describiing that logically impossible state of
affairs is a negation of the initial proposition that would falsify it if true.
This is hardly what Denis meant, however. It is more likely he
was using "falsifiable" altogether loosely. Or, if in a specific logical sense,
in the sense in which "falsifiable" means "falsifiable by observation". In
Popper's terms any statement/proposition that is falsifiable by observation is
scientific/empirical. But it betrays a misunderstanding of the sort perpetuated
by the Logical Positivists [remember them? "Fought nonsense. Lost"] to insist
that any hypothesis must be scientific in this sense - indeed this insistence
amounts to a proposal or hypothesis that is itself not scientific.
In its loose sense, the spirit of the injunction "Your hypothesis
must be falsifiable" is hardly objectionable. If you wonder why then this post
has gone on at such length to clarify what isn't really that objectionable in
the first place, consider this hypothesis: it has allowed me to defer, on
grounds of busyness, going into town to help buy more reduced price decorations
for next Christmas. (Whether this hypothesis is itself falsifiable by
observation is open to question - on the one hand, motives may not be
observable on the other hand the fact I'm still sitting here typing is).
3. From the same person quoted:
"Over the years I took four classes from Denis. Although I was a business
major, I consider his classes on ethics and critical thinking to be more
important in my career than a lot of the business courses I took."
Given Andreas' and others' comments, and indeed the current
economic downturn, it is intriguing to speculate what these "classes on ethics"
taught.
Donal
Who is grateful for a good Christmas
But does not want to go shopping for more decorations yet
Salop
--- On Fri, 31/12/10, Robert Paul <rpaul@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Here is a link to David Myers' memoir
> of Denis Dutton, on Myers' blog.
>
> http://dgmyers.blogspot.com/2010/12/denis-dutton-19442010.html
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
