4 ms·

I’ve refrained from commenting on this one precisely because (I assume) his definition of “rational economic order” and his justification for “best”, in the fir

I’ve refrained from commenting on this one precisely because (I assume) his definition of “rational economic order” and his justification for “best”, in the first two paragraphs, are context a reader of this journal is expected to already have, since he doesn’t elaborate on them, and lacking that the rest of the paper’s basically pointless (though his protest that in 1945 it was widely denied that there is any knowledge but scientific knowledge seems deeply silly per se and exactly the kind of thing you often see from people trying to push a “rebel” image for marketing reasons…) But yes the definitions of several other terms seem slippery and to change from one use to the next, including knowledge.

AnimalMuppet 2y ago
> (though his protest that in 1945 it was widely denied that there is any knowledge but scientific knowledge seems deeply silly per se and exactly the kind of thing you often see from people trying to push a “rebel” image for marketing reasons… Look up "logical positivism" as a philosophical system. It became the dominant academic philosophy for a while (including around 1945). It asserted almost exactly that - that there was no knowledge apart from scientific knowledge (although I believe it did accept direct sensory input as knowledge, and also the operations of pure logic). It's difficult now to see the water that he was swimming in then.