[lit-ideas] Donal + weird format
- From: Robert Paul <rpaul@xxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 07 Sep 2009 17:07:47 -0700
Donal quotes Phil, in a roundabout way
-----------------
What I am curious about is how the researchers, or Eric, might
understand the implications of their 'refutation' for the research
project itself. Put differently, given the 'refutation', what is the
significance of the study, beyond being the expression of the opinions
of the authors?
-----------------
and seems to accuse him of various things, e.g., of being some sort of
philosophical elitist and not paying attention to what a refutations
really are by paying attention to what Popper says they are or aren't.
As Phil was using the expression used by Eric, or by the researcher he
cites, in sneer quotes,' he was suggesting that the claimed refutation
of a certain view, wasn't. We need no theory of refutation to see that
e.g., 'Kennedy was assassinated in 1953,' would be refuted by the
truth of 'Kennedy was assassinated in 1963.' Both may be false, but
not both can be true. I'm sure there are greater depths to the concept
of refutation, but the investigation of them would, I think, be
another topic.
About the weirdness: I discovered when I read the screed I sent
concerning the research on emotions and choice, that the single quote
marks appeared as question marks. Sorry.
Robert Paul
Robert Paul
------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
- » [lit-ideas] Donal + weird format - Robert Paul
