>Yoshie Furuhashi 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."
>>
>>BTW, is Popper's theory falsifiable?
>
>i do not know where you are going with that question, but i will
>take it down this possibly wrong direction: popper's theory is
>not scientific (its meta-scientific) and does not need to be
>falsifiable.
What is the demarcation criterion that distinguishes "scientific" from "meta-scientific" theories?
How do you judge which "meta-scientific" theories are true, false, better, worse, more accurate, less accurate, progressive, degenerative, etc.? -- 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/>