--- Carrol Cox <cbcox at ilstu.edu> wrote: >
>
> Cian O'Connor wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > I haven't got any of his books to hand
> unfortunately,
> > so this is from memory. However he basically said
> that
> > if a statement isn't falsifiable, then it isn't
> > scientific.
>
> Among the innumerable objections to this failed
> attempt at defining
> science may I mention only one: Is the principle of
> falisfiability
> itself a scientific statement, and if so, is it
> falsifiable?
No, it's not a scientific statement. It's a categorisation. If a statement belongs to that category, then there are useful assumptions that one can make. Seeing the categorisation works for what people typically think of as science, I fail to see the problem.
> We are back
> with all the problems which were supposedly solved
> but in fact only
> raised in new forms by the Theory of Types.
Are you talking about orders of infinity, or Godel? Please be more specific. There are plenty of types of knowledge which don't fit the concept of science, but are still useful. History and economics being two good examples.
> If it is not a scientific statement, then one might
> suspect it of being a religious statement.
Only if one saw the world as divided between science and religion, with no room for anything else.
> It is certainly often asserted with the same
> bland assurance with which the Christian assures us
> that God is Love.
So have you read Popper with the same care that you gave Empire then, Carrol?
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Everything you'll ever need on one web page from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts http://uk.my.yahoo.com