2 ms·
> Karl Popper didn't invent falsifiability, he discovered it. Yes, and he discovered it using non-scientific techniques developed in the field of philosophy. T
by Veen 10y ago
> Karl Popper didn't invent falsifiability, he discovered it.
Yes, and he discovered it using non-scientific techniques developed in the field of philosophy. There is a philosophical term for the concept that ideas exist "out there" waiting to be discovered, but I don't imagine you'd be interested in the long history of that debate.
> All ideas are constructed on a foundation of sand and no particular idea has more persuasiveness
I didn't say that. I implied that in this instance your thinking is based on a foundation of sand and isn't persuasive. Others have done better.
I haven't much else substantive to say, except that you seem to have a chip on your shoulder about philosophy, which you construe as the works of a small group of French intellectuals from the middle of the Twentieth century. You're also not averse to making assumptions about the beliefs of the people you're talking to based on no evidence but your own prejudices and limited understanding. That isn't conducive to fruitful conversations.
- lutusp 10y ago>> Karl Popper didn't invent falsifiability, he discovered it. > Yes, and he discovered it using non-scientific techniques developed in the field of philosophy. This misses my point, which is that anyone could have noticed the existence of falsifiability, and the fact that a philosopher noticed it means nothing. The reason? The topic is ideas, not people who uncover ideas. > I haven't much else substantive to say, except that you seem to have a chip on your shoulder about philosophy, which you construe as the works of a small group of French intellectuals from the middle of the Twentieth century. You're assigning to me a viewpoint I've never held nor expressed. You've also abandoned the topic. > You're also not averse to making assumptions about the beliefs of the people you're talking to based on no evidence but your own prejudices and limited understanding. Ah -- so it is I who is making assumptions about the beliefs of others (something I have never done). Thanks for clearing that up, and I advise you to re-read your own posts. > That isn't conducive to fruitful conversations. It can't hold a candle to abandoning the topic entirely and moving instead into a personal discussion bearing no relevance to the topic of discussion.