[lit-ideas] Re: impopper
- From: Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 16:51:09 +0100 (BST)
________________________________
From: "Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx" <Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx>
>Of course Ayer, unlike perhaps Popper, was familiar with Strawson's (and
Grice's) conclusion in Strawson's "Introduction to Logical Theory", that the
so-called problem of induction is a misnomer (as many misnomers are), etc.>
P is familiar with Strawson's view and discusses it, for example in his Unended
Quest.
Afair, at root, Strawson makes the seemingly clever but hopeless point that
just as a valid deduction is judged by the standards of deductive logic so
valid induction is to be judged by the standards of inductive logic.
This is akin to defending the 'science of astrology' [or, say, of homeopathy]
by saying that just as physical science is to be judged by the standards of the
physical sciences so the science of astrology is to be judged by the standards
appropriate to the science of astrology: hence no problemo as to the status of
astrology as a science [when judged by its own standards of science].
Fortunately, P offers a way out of from this kind of philosophising about
induction.
D
Other related posts:
