In a message dated 1/22/2016 3:33:32 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx writes:
"It is true that some critics of Popper, like Ayer, took Popper as
proposing his 'demarcation criterion' as a criterion of meaning when Popper
never
did propose it as a criterion of meaning."
This begs a question (Most things do, though). Since _science_ *means*; so
even if Popper thought his criterion was for demarcating science vs.
nonsense (in his sense of 'nonsense') Ayer was not so off the mark.
McEvoy goes on:
"[O]ne source of this misinterpretation was that they offered their own
verifiability-criterion as a criterion of meaning and took any rival criterion
as also being a criterion of meaning. If the falsifiability-criterion were
a criterion of meaning then it would, according to itself, be meaningless
(because unfalsifiable) - but happily Popper's actual views never suffered
from this grave and obvious defect, though the verifiability-criterion did
(because meaningless according to its own strictures)."
Well, Bartley III poses a related question:
i. everything is controversial including this (i.e. (i)).
In other words.
ii. Everything is falsifiable.
Including (ii).
Ayer is a different beast, admittedly.
McEvoy:
"Ayer led this false charge against Popper in the English-speaking world.
But Popper's own critique of the verifiability-criterion predated his
awareness of Ayer and was based on (1) Popper's acquaintance with the views of
the Vienna Circle [to which he was dubbed the 'official opposition'] (2)
Popper's own failed but strenuous attempts to make a verifiability-criterion
work (not something evident from Popper's published writings but from the
reconstruction, of how Popper arrived at his published views, in Hacohen's
first-rate biography)."
Thanks.
I never, with Geary, knew why they called it a circle -- Geary told me, "I
was in Vienna, and they sat around a table, which was not even round!
Where is King Arthur, the once and future king, when one needs him?".
But McEvoy is right. Ayer and Quine were at that table (the "Vienna
Circle"). Ayer, prompted by Ryle. Quine prompted by some Harvardite, if not
Emerson.
McEvoy:
"To think Popper's _LdF_ was intended as a 'refudiation' of Ayer is like
thinking FDR proposed the New Deal to 'refudiate' Donald Trump."
This reminds me of a song by Judy Garland (also recorded by Flanagan and
Allen -- I prefer their version):
"It's a big holiday in town". A new baby was born. His name: "F. D. R."
In terms of "The End of History", it may well be argued that it is merely a
contingent matter (since there are no laws of history) that FDR did NOT
propose the New Deal to 'refudiate' Donal Trump. I drop the 'd' in Trump's
first name. Geary drops the 'p', and calls him "Trum".
Such are accents.
Incidentally, Clinton says that Palin endorsing Donal Trum can only
'redudiate' him!
McEvoy concludes:
"[W]hat Popper was doing was making a normative proposal based on very
simple (but profound) logical considerations. The value of this proposal lies
largely in how it clarifies, in logical terms, what makes science valuable
(i.e. its highly testable character). In this way, the normative proposal
throws much light on what should be described as valuable science - but it is
a proposal that remains fundamentally normative because it cannot be
derived from any facts about science (though it pertains to and illuminates
such
facts) nor derived/deduced from logic (though it amounts to a proposal as
to how to apply logical considerations to the evaluation of science)."
Mmm. Thanks. I wonder if that normativity David Home (of "Hume, Sweet Hume"
fame) would see as some sort of 'essence'. Essences are like 'ideals', as
per Kant's jargon.
So Popper is not saying what science IS, but what science SHOULD be.
Similarly Kant. He thought that what Newton was doing is what ALL
scientists SHOULD do.
Oddly, Popper ALSO focused on Newton; because he thought that since
Einstein REFUDIATED Newton, Newton's model became a 'conjecture' and it is this
"highly testable character" of Newton's theory ("an apple never falls down in
the open universe," as Einstein said) that makes Newton's theory
'scientific'.
O. T. O. H., usually the left one, Einstein's theory is hardly refudiable.
Cheers,
Speranza
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
