From: Steve Witham (sw@tiac.net)
Date: Mon Mar 24 1997 - 21:47:22 MST
Max writes (of Popper)-
>
>Doing away with verifiability hardly means science can't make progress.
>Popper is not Kuhn.
Does Kuhn doubt progress?? After all, Kuhn is just a different kind of
evolutionary epistemologist. His theory could be read to say that science
is rational (accomplishing a kind of criticism by attrition) *even when*
scientists themselves are not.
>...Perhaps a better account of scientific progress
>needs to be developed on a Popperian basis. (It would be a stimulating
>project to combine Churchland's account of scientific progress with
>Popper's account of the nature of science.)
Stove seems to say (in Reilly's quote) that Popper is flawed by
taking "observation" as a special category. I thought Bartley treated
that issue more uniformly, taking "observations" (& observational methods)
as just more ideas to hold-provisionally. More uniformly "irrational,"
meaning non-justificationist, of course.
--Steve
-- sw@tiac.net Steve Witham web page under reconsideration "At the latter I was informal, at the former I wore my suit, I wore my swimming suit." --Kate & Anna McGarrigle
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:44:18 MST