AN wrote this >>I am not sure about what is wrong with staying close to the intuitive judgments of science.>>
in response to this: CJ>>Popper never really moved that far away from intuitive judgements > about what scientists might actually do and believe.>> --------------------------- Intuitive judgments of science? How objective or empirical or experimental or controlled could these be? What I meant though was that Popper, a non-scientist, didn't really understand what most scientists believe or what most scientists actually do (not the same thing). This from a guy who thought he could tell you how to tell a pseudo-science from science. What is that saying about, 'Those who can't, TEACH'. Judging from the scientists across campus they don't even have a notion of falsifiability. Now that science is mostly applied science and invented technology, it is even further away from the concerns of this sort of philosophy of science. Perhaps Schon and Argyris ought to be added to philosophy of 'science' (in the sense that just about every topic taught and researched at North American universities claims to be empirical and scientific) and Popper dropped altogether. It wouldn't hurt to add Lyotard while I am at it. If I had to come up with a term to describe the approach to epistemology in 'science' as I see it, I would say naive positivist, or even romantic positivist. CJ _______________________________________________ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
