----- Original Message ----- From: "Yoshie Furuhashi" <furuhashi.1 at osu.edu> To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com> Sent: Monday, December 31, 2001 4:07 PM Subject: Re: Marxism is a science
> Ravi says:
>
> >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
=============
Yoshie, stop what you're doin', grab some champagne and *relax* :-)!
Ian