JLS' last post contains a long coda on Bartley and Popper and stuff. It would interest me to know the sources for the many varied claims in this coda. For example, for the claims"Parts of Popper's Realism and the Aim of Science, a book that W. W. Bartley, III, edited, and the Addendum to the fourth edition of The Open Society and Its Enemies contain passages that are commonly interpreted as Popper's acceptance of Bartley's views. These were in fact written by W. W. Bartley, III, himself, but this is controversial." And how these claims square with an earlier claim (also unsourced): "However, despite the restored friendship, W. W. Bartley, III's view -- pace McEvoy -- was never accepted by Popper, who criticised it even after Bartley's death." The squaring is needed because on the face of it Popper had editorial and authorial final say on his publications, so even if Bartley had written in "passages" (itself admitted in the coda to be "controversial" a claim) they would not have been published unless Popper accepted them; and if Popper accepted them, then how we can say that Bartley's view was "never accepted" by Popper? A memorable line from a review on the dustjacket of Bartley's book on Wittgenstein reads: "a farrago of lies and poppycock". I don't wish to suggest that JLS' coda is a farrago of lies and poppycock (at least not yet) but would like to know the sources for the relevant claims - some of which appear to contradict each other, as indicated above. On one claim I can offer a sort of corroboration: "Bartley would occasionally lecture in logic in London -- or "at London", as he said in his letters to his family in the USA." [Another unsourced claim]. Rudy is 4 1/2 now but still uses a similar locution - as in "Is Donal at London?" "Is it raining at London, Donal?" etc.This leaves open the explanation for the linguistic similarity, which may of course differ in both cases, and even differ to the extent that Rudy's speech patterns offer no corroboration at all to what was said by Bartley in his letters to his family in the USA. Dnl ldn On Tuesday, 10 February 2015, 14:04, "dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: In a message dated 2/9/2015 1:47:43 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx makes the crucial question (and other meta-linguistic ones, also crucial): >"Why be rational?" Perhaps Grice would consider that question too crucially. So that's why (or that is because, as Geary prefers) he (Grice) distinguishes between 'rational' from 'reasonable' ('the price of those shoes ain't reasonable' makes sense; 'ain't rational' doesn't). It's best to start with the verb, "to reason" And surely if we are engaged in the game of reason, we might just as play it well ("If a thing is worth doing it, it is worth doing it right"). There is an adjective for good reasoning, 'valid'. But 'reasoning' (like 'cabbage', Grice says) is one of those words that are value-oriented. They bring their own value on its face. There is no such thing as 'bad reasoning'. Bad reasoning is just no reasoning. So rather than 'why be rational?', the philosopher aims at providing criteria for 'good' reasoning, where reasoning applies. Surely it doesn't apply when Rodin is making his sculptures (but it applies when Buonarroti is making his sculptures -- odd that). Omar: "Well, actually I thought that Popper of the Open Society had a point there. Various parts of the rationalist system can be defended in rational terms but the system as a whole cannot be defended in its own terms without circularity." In what follows, Omar distinguishes between what Russell called an object-language (wrongly) and a meta-language (a barbarism: a hybrid of a Greek and a Latin root). "We can (perhaps) explain to someone that such and such opinion or action is rational and its opposite irrational but finally there comes a point when we are asked asked: "Why be rational ?" At this point, it is difficult to see how the question be answered except by saying "Because it is rational to be rational " which is circular" Grice considers this in his Bootstrap principle: how to pull yourself by your own bootstraps. It ain't necessarily circular. Rather it involves an object-language, "x is rational" and a meta-language", "it is rational that x is rational". Granted, Grice's Bootstrap principle enjoins that no item or object in the object-language be introduced unless we have ways to describe it in the meta-language ('to save a problem for the morrow', he adds). Omar: "or else by invoking a personal or cultural commitment to rationalism which is in itself not rational." Granted, Grice, echoing Kant, called himself 'enough of a rationalist'. There are degrees of rationalism. One can be rationalist when enjoying a painting by Mondrian but not by Matisse, say. Similarly, to ask for a rational price of shoes, when what one needs is that the price is merely reasonable is to be over-Kantian. Omar concludes: "If the later Popper found a solution to this conundrum I would like to know what it was." Apparenly, it was Bartley, or Bartley III, as I prefer -- I love this very aristocratic way that Americans have of keeping things that the French ended with the French Revolution -- cfr. Louis XIV -- who led Popper out of the conundum. Bartley was famous for getting into trouble especially with followers of Witters, and it's good to learn in this occasion he led someone OUT of trouble. Cheers, Speranza William Warren Bartley, III, was born in Wilkinsburg, Pennsylvania. Bartley was brought up in a Protestant home. His mother said, "I would have brought him up in a Protestant CHURCH, but his father, W. W. Bartley II, protested. I was told my husband's mother had also thought of bringing W. W. Bartley II in a Protestant Church, but W. W. Bartley, I (as he then wasn't) had protested, too. It ran in the family." W. W. Bartley, III, went to Harvard, graduating with a degree in philosophy -- which was considered 'classy' (the combo Harvard + philosophy). While at Harvard, W. W. Bartley, III was the editor at "The Harvard Crimson", as he should (The "Harvard Crimson" didn't have an editor then, and W. W. Bartley, III, thought it reasonable to assume the position). Later, the 'crossed the pond', as he put it, and met Sir Karl Popper at a famous pub in London. As it happened, Sir Karl (as he was known to his friends) was then advising students, and so W. W. Bartley, III, wrote his PhD essay on "The Limits of Rationality: A Critical Study of Some Logical Problems of Contemporary Pragmatism and Related Movements". He later said, "I know: it's a long title -- but I thought "The Limits of rationality" was too short, on the other hand". "Popper was unsure that 'related movements' was adequate. ""Movement" best applies to W1, as when I move my arm, but that's not what you have in mind, in W2, is it, 'the third'?" (Popper kept referring to W. W. Bartley, III as 'the third' implicating he knew W. W. Bartley, I, and W. W. Bartley, II). Bits of "The Limits of Rationality, etc." were subsequently published in his book, "The Retreat to Commitment". Bartley would occasionally lecture in logic in London -- or "at London", as he said in his letters to his family in the USA. Later, he held positions at the Warburg Institute, which is very posh. Even later, he was appointed a post at the University of California, where Grice taught. But while Grice taught at UC/Berkeley, W. W. Bartley, III, taught at UC/San Diego (Diego was a mediaeval saint, and W. W. Bartley, III, as a Protestant, was sceptical about a university having a campus on a saint's shrine). That was perhaps the reason he moved to University of Pittsburgh, founde by Pitts, a Protestant (the 'Burgh' is decorative). W. W. Bartley, III, still later joined the California State University, Hayward faculty as a Professor of Philosophy, where he received the distinction of “Outstanding Professor” of the entire California State University System. It should be noted that the California State University is NOT where Grice taught. Grice taught at the University of California. The Hayward faculty is named after Hayward. Even later, W. W. Bartley became a Research Fellow ("that fellow doing research there," as his mates called him, informally) at the Hoover Institution, named after Hoover. Bartley and Popper had a great admiration for each other. In other words, their admiration was mutual or reciprocal. This was partly because of their common stand against justificationism. There were few justificationists living in London then, which perhaps helped. ("All justificationists seem to have moved to Oxford -- or worse, Cambridge). (Geary is a justificationist). However, at the International Colloquium in the Philosophy of Science at Bedford College, University of London, W. W. Bartley, III and his PhD thesis advisor -- aka Sir Karlk -- came into conflict with each other. Bartley had presented a paper, "Theories of Demarcation Between Science and Metaphysics," in which he accused Popper of displaying a positivist attitude in his early works and proposed that Popper's demarcation criterion was not as important as Popper thought it was. "I should have written, "as Popper THEN thought it was. It is amusing that all our fight was because I forgot to qualify Popper's thought." Popper took this as a personal attack, as it wasn't. "I wasn't referring to Popper the man, just Popper the philosopher". Popper replied in an open letter, "By the same token, you might just as well distinguish between Margot Fonteyn the woman and Margot Fonteyn the ballerina -- Nonsense!". Bartley took Sir Karl's reply as indicating that Popper was ignoring his criticism. "To be precise, I took his reply as indicating that he had read my criticism but found it _stoopid" (transcript of talk -- W. W. Bartley uses the American pronunciation of 'stupid', /stupid/, not /stjupid/. Perhaps there is an implicature there. Their friendship was not restored until much later, after the publication of The Philosophy of Karl Popper (edited by Paul Schillpp) in the "Library of Living Philosophers" (As Schillpp commented, "Surely we don't need a Library of Dead Philosophers"). W. W. Bartley, III, abruptly changed the tone of his remarks about Popper's criterion of demarcation, making it less aggressive. "I added a few 'pleases' and 'thankyous' for good measure. I even included the occasional Germanism, to please his Austrian pride: 'ach', 'noch'"). However, despite the restored friendship, W. W. Bartley, III's view -- pace McEvoy -- was never accepted by Popper, who criticised it even after Bartley's death. Popper said, "I knew he didn't then have a chance to respond", implicating, 'falsify my view'. On top of things, W. W. Bartley, III, took the time to publish a very controversial biography of Witters (Austin: Some like Witters, but Moore's MY man"). ("I thought a bio of Moore would sell less"). Many perceived W. W. Bartley, III's book as a posthumous "attack" on Wittgenstein, with the emphasis on 'attack' rather than 'posthumous' (Witters was indeed dead by then). In a second edition of the biography (La Salle, Illinois: Open Court, 1985, pp. 159–97), W. W. Bartley, III, answered the objections of critics. The biography inspired Jarman, where he makes a point about the connections between Witters's philosophy and his private life (that W. W. Bartley, III, denied -- but then 'never saw the film.'). W. W. Bartley, III, also wrote a biography of Werner Erhard, the founder of est. It tells everything about Werner Erhard, from his birth to his days of fame, with the bits in between. W. W. Bartley, III, was graduate of Erhard Seminars Training. Werner Erhard refers to W. W. Bartley, III, in the book as "My friend Bill", which is odd, as W. W. Bartley went by the more aristocratic, "W. W. Bartley, III", and hardly "Bill". Still, W. W. Bartley, III, served on the advisory board of Est, an educational company. W. W. Bartley, III, edited the book by Oxonian C. L. Dodgson (best known for "Alice in Wonderland"), Symbolic Logic, including the second volume, which Carroll had never published. "Alice never liked it," Dodgson says in his Private Journal. ("What's the good of a book without drawings?"). What pained Dodgson is that the second volume of Symbolic Logic "does have drawings -- if, if I myself might say so, rather boring ones"). W. W. Bartley, III, extends Popperian epistemology in his book The Retreat to Commitment, in which he describes Pancritical rationalism (PCR), a development of critical rationalism and panrationalism. PCR attempts to work around the problem of ultimate commitment or infinite regress by decoupling criticism and justification. A pancritical rationalist holds all positions open to criticism, including PCR, and never resorts to authority for justification. Cfr. Margaret Thatcher. Parts of Popper's Realism and the Aim of Science, a book that W. W. Bartley, III, edited, and the Addendum to the fourth edition of The Open Society and Its Enemies contain passages that are commonly interpreted as Popper's acceptance of Bartley's views. These were in fact written by W. W. Bartley, III, himself, but this is controversial. Alan Ebenstein, a biographer of F. A. Hayek, criticized W. W. Bartley, III, for the extent of the changes he made as the editor of The Fatal Conceit. ("It was as if someone annotating Grice's "Logic and Conversation" were to retitle the thing, "Conversation and Logic", he said to "The Financial Times"). Bruce Cadwell suggests that the book in its published form may actually have been written by W. W. Bartley, III. Bartley lived in Oakland, that Grice often visited -- the city, because it has a good Italian restaurant. Grice once found a stray cat in Oakland, which he called "Oakland" (He already had one called Sausalito and one called Moraga). Bartley published "Unfathomed Knowledge, Unmeasured Wealth: On Universities and the Wealth of Nations", a rather obscure book. Other works he was preparing included writing a biography, and editing the collected works, of Friedrich Hayek. The latter was being completed after W. W. Bartley, III's death. Also "unfinished" was a biography of Popper. Both biographies were in an advanced stage at the time of W. W. Bartley, III's death. Bibliography: The Retreat to Commitment. Morality and Religion. Lewis Carroll's Symbolic Logic. Wittgenstein. Ludwig Wittgenstein e Karl Popper: maestri di scuola elementare. Come demarcare la scienza della metafisica. Werner Erhard, The Transformation of a Man: The Founding of est. The Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism, (editor, with F. A. Hayek) Rehearsing a revolution – Karl Popper: A Life. Unfathomed Knowledge, Unmeasured Wealth. Notes: M. Artigas: The Ethical Nature of Karl Popper's Theory of Knowledge, "About Bartley and the Institute". The Bartley Institute; David Miller: Bartley. Critical Rationalism; Gerard Radnitzky: William W. Bartley III Popper Letters, Karl R. Popper: On the Sources of Knowledge and of Ignorance. Proceedings of the British Academyreprinted in Conjectures and Refutations; Kiichi Tachibana: Mails exchanged between Prof. Tachibana and Prof. Agassi On the Kyoto Prize Workshop. Popper Letters William Warren Bartley III, Wittgenstein, Philadelphia, Lippincott, Madigan, Timothy J. "The Uses and Abuses of Philosophical Biographies". Philosophy Now Philosophy Now. Ankerberg, John and John Weldon Encyclopedia of New Age Beliefs: The New Age Movement. Eugene OR: Harvest House Publishers. Gardner, Martin The Universe in a Handkerchief: Lewis Carroll's Mathematical Recreations, Games, Puzzles, and Word Plays. New York: Springer. Wettersten, John R. "Karl Popper and Critical Rationalism". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. ^ Rowbottom, Darrell P. (Popper's Critical Rationalism: A Philosophical Investigation. New York: Routledge. . Alan Ebenstein: Investigation: The Fatal Deceit. Liberty 19:3. Karl Popper, a Centenary Assessment Vol. 1: Life and Times, and Values in a World of Facts. Stephen Kresge: On the Passing of W. W. Bartley III. Popper Letters. Obituary: “William W. Bartley 3d, Research Fellow, 55”, New York Times. Caldwell, Bruce J. "Review of "Friedrich Hayek: A Biography"". The Independent Review. Independent Institute. Why simply as Bartley. Bartley discussing The Burghers of Calais with Popper, on Stanford campus Categories: California State University, East Bay faculty, Critical rationalists. ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html