--- Yoshie Furuhashi <furuhashi.1 at osu.edu> wrote: >
Cian says:
>
> >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?
It's a categorisation; a way of dividing scientific enquiry from other forms. It's trivially true for statements made in the hard sciences. The majority of statements made in the soft sciences cannot be proven false. How would you test the hypothesises of Marx? You can set up an experiment in which you attempt to disprove F=MA.
How would you set out to disprove Marx's maxim about the inevitability of revolution? Maybe you can, but noone has managed it, or tried really.
Note: I have never said that science is a better mode of enquiry - though your attack on me suggests that you feel it is. Marxist analysis has more in common with historical analysis.
__________________________________________________ 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