[lit-ideas] Re: Meta-Philosophy
- From: Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2004 19:40:04 +0100 (BST)
>
> I stand firm with my previous opinion. Surely a _non-philosophical_ answer
>
> can be given to 'what is philosophy?'. Ditto, a non-artistic answer can be
> given to 'what is art?'
What - that they are both a load of crap, for example?
I don't see how this addresses Pop's demarcation criterion argument -
according to which if the answer is not falsifiable/testable by observation
then it is not scientific and is then, ipso facto, metaphysical/philosophical
- even if if is not _quality_ metaphysl./philosl, as per above answer.
Btw, among other errors, I did earlier mean to say that scientists agree with
the norms Popper proposes, not "opposes" as I in fact wrote.
But then I fear I will fear my Athens' drug test too.
Donal
England
___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW Yahoo!
Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
