[lit-ideas] Re: My father's wound
- From: Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2012 15:48:58 +0100 (BST)
________________________________
From: Eric Yost <mr.eric.yost@xxxxxxxxx>
Donal: Popper's philosophy does indeed create some intractable tangles
[e.g. explicating 'verisimilitude'] but the Raven Paradox isn't one...
>Hold on a minute! That was Hempel. I know you like Popper, but jeez, he
gets more work in your posts than an accordion player at a Polish
wedding. From Nietzsche, we've high-tailed it to Poppermania.>
The sense I intended was not that Popper created the Raven Paradox ["That was
Hempel"] but that it is side-stepped by Popper's non-inductive approach which
gives positive instances of a generalisation no greater logical value than
instances of anything else: in other words, the intractable tangle of the Raven
Paradox is a tangle created by inductivism [insofar as this attempts to give
positive instances a logical status via 'confirmation' that is greater than the
mere fact they are the absence of a falsifying instance] but not one created by
a non-inductive approach. But then if Robert can be misinterpreted as saying
the Tractatus is over-rated...
[There is less mania in Popper's philosophy than most btw, though I admit there
are self-styled Popperians of a manic sort.]
Donal
Plymouth
Other related posts:
