On Saturday, July 21, 2001 4:55 PM Russell Blackford firstname.lastname@example.org
> 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
> 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.
See the brief piece that J. R. Molloy fears to answer in other than ad
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:39:54 MDT