Teacher: I will give a quick recap of our last lesson: We discarded the Logical Positivist solution to the demarcation problem as leaving far too many statements in that would qualify as ‘science’ and leaving out strictly universal statements as ‘meaningless’. We moved on to Popper’s original solution to the demarcation problem. It attempts to cleave scientific statements from non-scientific (or pseduo-scientific) statements by proposing that scientific statements are falsifiable, while non-scientific statements are not. Has anyone found a problem with this solution?
Posts Tagged ‘feyerabend’
fallibilism, feyerabend on 29/06/2011 at 5:12 am
The interview ‘Feyerabend and Beyond‘ with Golanzo Munévar is worth a read–a proper defense (and critique) of Feyerabend, who I’ve always felt was misunderstood by most philosophers of science.