In a message dated 1/16/2000 6:59:57 AM Pacific Standard Time,
rubingh@delftnet.nl writes:
> OK, fine ! Be it so. I can live with being called a justificationalist.
:-)
An old biography categorized me in "analytic philosopher" which is
justificationalist. That is ok because it places me right along with Carnap
and Ayer, two of my heros. (and now you have joined the group --
Wittgenstein, Frege, Russell, Vienna Circle, Uppsala, Lvov-Warsaw Circle).
This group lead to liguistic philosophy, pragmatism, logical empiricism
(positivism -- e.g., Stephen Hawking). . . not too shabby, I'd say. (BTW I
curently s/b catagorized as PCR/CCR non-justificationalist. I admit I
changed direction).
> > Make up a new word for this concept or call them "survivors."
>
> OK, that would seem to be a fine solution. I like this "survivors"
> terminology !! It is nonsense to say that a theory is 'true' or 'false',
> one
> should say that the theory is a 'survivor' or 'non-survivor' meme. Nice
!!
> But you did *not* explain here
*why* justificationalism is unnecessary, you only quoted authorities who say
so. >>
That is how Popper solved Hume's "problem of induction." The main reason
(non-authoritrarian reason) is that _Deduction_ is used in place of
_Induction_. That is "Why." No one else has been able to do that as far as
I know. The anthology editied Radnitzky and Bartley is the best place I know
to read about this. This anthology has an many con- as pro- articles and
seems well balanced.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:02:19 MDT