> --- Yoshie Furuhashi <furuhashi.1 at osu.edu> wrote: >
>Cian says:
>>
>> >Because the statements of Marx could not be
>> >falsifiable, Marxism is not scientific.
>>
>> You have yet to prove your hypothesis that "the
>> statements of Marx
>> couldn't be falsifiable."
>
>I suggest that you read "The Poverty of Historicism".
>I am not Popper, and it's been a few years since I've
>read him, so my paraphrasing of his theories would be
>hopelessly inadequate. I don't have my copy to hand,
>or I'd quote from it.
>
>> BTW, is Popper's theory falsifiable?
>
>Popper's theory doesn't claim to be scientific. Being
>scientific is not a mark of legitimacy. However
>unscientific theories cannot take advantage of the
>scientific toolset of predictive induction etc.
If Popper's theory isn't itself scientific, why should we care whether X is or isn't scientific according to his criteria? Upon what grounds do you decide Popper's theory is unscientific and yet legitimate? -- Yoshie
* Calendar of Anti-War Events in Columbus: <http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/calendar.html> * Anti-War Activist Resources: <http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/activist.html> * Student International Forum: <http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/> * Committee for Justice in Palestine: <http://www.osu.edu/students/CJP/>