4 ms·

Well, The demarcation problem is distinguishing science from non-science. Karl Popper theorizes that falsifiability is what makes the difference. But there's

Well, The demarcation problem is distinguishing science from non-science. Karl Popper theorizes that falsifiability is what makes the difference. But there's nothing falsifiable about that theory! What would you test? If you accept that there are meaningful theories outside of science, this works out fine. If you don't, you'll struggle to say what science is.

mannykannot 3y ago
Definitions are hardly a problem just for science (if they are a problem - science seems to doing OK regardless), and I feel they are particularly difficult for those with a strong commitment to the view that ethics must somehow be grounded in something irrefutably true. In fact, I vaguely suspect that Wittgenstein's later position with respect to the rule-following paradox was that seeking such grounding is a doomed pursuit, and he somewhat famously contended that philosophy was not concerned with problems, only linguistic puzzles. Perhaps rather paradoxically (at least if you see Popper as a champion of science over philosophy), Popper (who, in addition to his work on the philosophy of science, also wrote "The Open Society and its Enemies") felt that Wittgenstein was utterly wrong to deny that there are real philosophical problems. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/wittgenstein/#RuleFollPrivLang https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/wittgenstein/#RuleFollPri... https://ditext.com/wordpress/2019/06/26/puzzles-vs-problems-in-philosophy-karl-popper-and-the-poker-of-ludwig-wittgenstein/ https://ditext.com/wordpress/2019/06/26/puzzles-vs-problems-...
- card_zero 3y ago
  Thank you, I knew there would be relevant Popper quotes about philosophy being meaningful, and I was trying the keyword "transempirical" without success. I forgot it was the underlying beef in the poker incident. :)

4 ms·

Well, The demarcation problem is distinguishing science from non-science. Karl Popper theorizes that falsifiability is what makes the difference. But there's

by card_zero 3y ago

mannykannot 3y ago
Definitions are hardly a problem just for science (if they are a problem - science seems to doing OK regardless), and I feel they are particularly difficult for those with a strong commitment to the view that ethics must somehow be grounded in something irrefutably true. In fact, I vaguely suspect that Wittgenstein's later position with respect to the rule-following paradox was that seeking such grounding is a doomed pursuit, and he somewhat famously contended that philosophy was not concerned with problems, only linguistic puzzles. Perhaps rather paradoxically (at least if you see Popper as a champion of science over philosophy), Popper (who, in addition to his work on the philosophy of science, also wrote "The Open Society and its Enemies") felt that Wittgenstein was utterly wrong to deny that there are real philosophical problems. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/wittgenstein/#RuleFollPrivLang https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/wittgenstein/#RuleFollPri... https://ditext.com/wordpress/2019/06/26/puzzles-vs-problems-in-philosophy-karl-popper-and-the-poker-of-ludwig-wittgenstein/ https://ditext.com/wordpress/2019/06/26/puzzles-vs-problems-...
- card_zero 3y ago
  Thank you, I knew there would be relevant Popper quotes about philosophy being meaningful, and I was trying the keyword "transempirical" without success. I forgot it was the underlying beef in the poker incident. :)