From: Technotranscendence (neptune@mars.superlink.net)
Date: Sun Jul 22 2001 - 19:57:48 MDT
On Saturday, July 21, 2001 4:55 PM Russell Blackford rblackford@hotmail.com
wrote:
> J.R. told us why he thinks philosophy is useless.
>
> In answer, I say: (1) this is a narrow view of philosophy (there is no
sharp
> dividing line between philosophy and science);
I agree, though it's a separate argument over the validity of pancritical
rationalism. Molloy could be right about philosophy -- all of philosophy,
which is like saying all science is useless because most scientific theories
are wrong (most have been rejected, no?) -- and pancritical rationalism
could still be self-contradictory according to its own arguments.
> (2) FWIW, I think that Daniel
> Ust's critique of pancritical rationalism is convincing.
Glad to see someone does. I didn't actually think this was a difficult
point to demonstrate.
Later!
Daniel Ust
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/
See the brief piece that J. R. Molloy fears to answer in other than ad
hominem attacks:
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/PCR.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:09:01 MST