[lit-ideas] Re: Popper and Oxford

  • From: "" <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> (Redacted sender "Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx" for DMARC)
  • To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Sun, 4 May 2014 07:51:51 -0400 (EDT)

We were wondering about virtual impossibilities (Popper) and nonvirtual  
unnecessities (Grice) in the Oxonian curriculum, vis-à-vis, a claim by  McEvoy:
 
"I seriously think, due what we might call 'institutional bias', it would  
be virtually impossible to get a First Class degree in philosophy from 
Oxbridge  by arguing as Popper would argue, even though Popper is a far greater 
 
philosopher than anyone who gains such a First Class degree."
 
I proposed to track the issue methodically, and notice that while Popper  
did teach philosophy in Canterbury (New Zealand), in his London years he was  
chair to "Logic and Scientific Method", as I recall, for the LSEPS (London  
School of Economics and Political Science). 
 
On the other hand, there would be core Philosophy as understood in Oxford,  
covered by the two Ws: the Waynflete chair of metaphysical philosophy and 
the  White chair of moral philosophy. 
 
I now search for 'philosophy of science' as practised in Oxford. The  
Faculty pages keep quite a complete record of faculty, visitors, etc., with  
descriptions of their research interests, and I was looking for someone who may 
 
display an interest in Popper. I come across with a more institutionally  
oriented page at:

http://www.philosophy.ox.ac.uk/admissions/graduate/mst_in_philosophy_of_phys
ics

This is a course towards a MSt in Philosophy of Science and comprises what  
the programme refers to as 
 
a

Philosophy of Science component 
 
It informs the potential candidate:

"Philosophy of science concerns both scientific method and the  
philosophical examination of the nature and scope of scientific knowledge, as  
well as 
the content of specific sciences, principally physics, but also  
mathematics, neuroscience, evolutionary biology, and linguistics."
 
It should be pointed out that Popper never actually taught "Philosophy of  
Science" but "Scientific Method" -- as part of his course "Logic and 
Scientific  Method" and there IS a difference. A pedantic student might 
challenge 
Popper or  might have challenged Popper back then:
 
Popper: And then Carnap, in "Logical Syntax..."
Student: Sir, excuse me, sir, but the course is on Scientific Method, not  
PHILOSOPHY of science as such, isn't it? That's what I enrolled for! I don't 
 want no stinking philosophy!
Popper: Excuse _me_!?
 
The Oxonian page above continues:
 
"As such it ["philosophy of science"] overlaps with metaphysics and  
epistemology, in which it has always played a central role, particularly in the 
 
early modern period, and in the history of analytic philosophy."
 
The mention of "metaphysics" may be a nod to the Waynflete professor of  
metaphysical philosophy, with the attending implicature: "So it may do you 
good  if you go and attend one lecture or two by the Waynflete, you know". 
 
The note ends with: "It [Philosophy of science] is taught with special  
emphasis on this context in philosophy."
 
which may have Popperian implicatures: philosophy of science is what a  
PHILOSOPHER does. If he taught Scientific Method, this -- an examination of  
scientific method -- may NOT be what a philosopher does, necessarily. For  
example, many philosophers have criticised Kuhn for doing 'sociology of  
science', which, alas, he took as a compliment!
 
The note concludes: "This subject [of philosophy of science'] is  taught 
via (i) the undergraduate lecture courses in philosophy of science; (ii)  
individual supervisions; and (iii) a graduate class in philosophy of science, 
to 
 be held regularly during the second term."
 
And it is expected that Popper will be properly discussed.
 
The other area that McEvoy was considering was Popper's work in the  
'philosophy of mind'. Oddly, it's again a W that pops up in Oxford, with one  
mere 
Wilde readership in the philosophy of mind. But things have advanced since  
then... Then there's of course the whole field of the "History of Ideas", 
as per  The Visiting Professorship in the History of Ideas ("made possible by 
the  generous support of Francis Finlay," and which "takes place during 
Hilary Term  and is hosted by Merton College"), to where Popper's work on the 
poverty of  historicism may best belong. 
 
Cheers,

Speranza
 
 
 
------------------------------------------------------------------
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: