what is, to me at any rate, exhausting of the dynamic duo of luis speranza
and donald evoy ((DL, see below) is the outstanding ability to produce a
cross and have other bear it.
so, in sum, the example of machismo is the habit of having wives typing
texts, allegedly and\or actually written in longhand by their husbands.
as for the so called argument by Churchill, it is a trope of the literature
since the time of the existence of elephants certified by blind humans by
touch.
In Sextus one finds the same claims, as one finds it in countless occasion.
One celebrated case is the Irish writer, churchman, and author G. Berkeley
(the person who held that nothing exists but in perception.) In order to
have a skeletal explanation of why x perceives o and y perceives o he had
to resort to the extraordinary claim that there is a god who busies itself
with perceiving everything everywhen, hence when speranza is asleep
speranza does not perceives evoy, & evoy does not cease to exist since god
perceives evoy anytime anyway.
imho the best treatment of the issue is still Nozick' Invariancies, a text
by B Nozick about 20 years old. The idea is that what counts as being an
objective alpha is dependent on the invariances (small example of
invariance: the sun as seen by humans is invariant under a number of
transformations, as seen by telescope, as measured by computation, as
deducted by classical mechanics observation of endless machines, people,
space crafts, spectral graphs und so weiter.)
for the record, the problem of induction is an artifact of empiricism, the
problems of induction are so many that I may only refer to J. Pearl on the
matter... but again Pearl is at fault since Pearl is not Popper and is not
Grice, etc.
palma, apgs
On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 9:03 PM, Donal McEvoy <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Is it a bird, or is it a plane or is it >another instance of right wing
machismo>
Not really. Remember my last post?
It was just looking for a quotation or reference which might indicate that
Churchill's argument is a "rehash", as Adriano maintains, and therefore
unoriginal. Perhaps there are so many, we're paralysed for choice - and
that is the explanation why this simple request goes unanswered, as yet.
Adriano talks (sarcastically) of "no mistakes" in Popper; pace Adriano,
there admittedly are some mistakes in Popper's published work, like his
mistaken definition of verisimilitude (I've mentioned this one before). No
one in their right mind would defend all of Popper's writings as flawless;
and though I think a rational person could defend Popper's treatment of the
'problem of induction' as virtually flawless, his solution is not complete
in every respect and is not conclusive against induction, so a rational
person could reject it. Of course, how much any "mistakes" affect the
overall thrust is open to question - in the case of 'verisimilitude' does
the failure of the definition shipwreck the very concept, and shipwreck
Popper's theory of knowledge along with it, or does 'verisimilitude' remain
valid as a concept and the failure of the definition have no impact on its
role within Popper's theory of knowledge (except to admit there is
currently some definitional or conceptual uncertainty as to what ensures
one theory has greater versimilitude than another)? In the case of some
other alleged "mistakes" by Popper, their character as mistakes is
disputable, as well as their impact on the overall thrust (e.g. the
questionable character of Popper's characterisation of Plato and Hegel
hardly invalidates any of the core arguments in favour of democracy used in
_The Open Society_).
But some mistakes are clear cut and easily enough established. A good
thing about my request (yesterday) is that, if the 'cross bearing' argument
a "rehash" and therefore Popper mistakes Churchill's originality, it should
be easy enough to provide a quotation/reference that shows Popper's mistake
in this regard.
Unless perhaps Churchill's "cross-bearing" precursors worked solely in an
oral tradition, like Homer, in which case we should be told.*
D
L
*Look how difficult sarcasm is and applaud the wit and insight
