 |
 |
Hi Rafe, quite the opposite, The comments are specifically about Popperian "standard empricism" as used in Nick's "philosophy of science" argument. That's the only "Popperian line" I am referring to here. I too find plenty of very good stuff in Popper's wider / later philiosphy ... as I said I find myself wanting to remind Nick of that, but it doesn't invalidate Nick's central point about the "neurosis". Does it ? Ian On 6/15/07, Rafe Champion <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > (1) Nick is pretty well saying that Popperian "standard empiricism" is > > part of the problem (in fact I even find myself defending other > > aspects of Popper against Nick's arguments). > > Has anyone explained how Popper's epistemology stands against wisdom or the > helpful and humanitarian application of knowledge? > > If you are looking for a more up front account of social and political > problem-solving you would turn from his epistemology to The Open Society and > its Enemies. > > > (2) When you say "True science is by its nature not 'neurotic' but > > impartial to all save the objective of expanding knowledge of the > > world." ... you seem to be wishing that's what it was (true science), > > but missing the point that depite the Popperian line, in practice it > > (actual science) is not, and nor should it be if it we're honest. It's > > that repressed paradox that is the neurosis. > > I don't know what you mean by "despite the Popper line", as though there was > some defect in Popper's ideas that has to be dismissed as a "line". He never > tried to be a sociologist of science, he was concerned with promoting best > practice in the search for truth, with a concern for the application of the > findings as well. Not a bad line actually. > > Rafe Champion >