Monthly Archives: September 2010

Sometimes I want to talk about CR rather than Popper, to “de-Popperize” CR and give more credit to others but still Popper is the 800lb gorilla in the room.  It is amusing to see the lengths that the philosophers have gone … Continue reading →

Justin Cruikshank came to my notice last week when I checked out Philosophy of the Social Sciences at the university library. You can read the abstract of the paper here, with notices of other recent works including a book of essays on … Continue reading →

There is an old saying that the Battle of Waterloo was won on the playing fields of Eton, falsely attributed to the Duke of Wellington, the Iron Duke who presided over the event. I suppose it means that battles are won by teamwork … Continue reading →

Sometimes I wonder about the libertarian movement, how it is going world-wide – numbers, influence, key figures, new ideas etc. Anyway, this is a London event billed as the most glittering libertarian event on the Continent. Nice that they think … Continue reading →

On the History and Philosophy of Science email list someone wrote: “I always wonder what scientists are claiming when they say they are Popperians.  Very few, if any, I have found, eschew confirmation (and positive evidence) in practice.  Mostly they … Continue reading →

You could say that a Soil Science student in Australia had a better chance of getting a positive introduction to Popper than a Philosophy student. That was when Keith Barley and Geoffrey Leeper were teaching Soil Science.

I don’t want to be pedantic about this, it looks as though this is a British/US difference. For those who like to get the full story on these things there is more from Wik.

“Analytic philosophy is not so much a school of thought as a style or method. It is a style of philosophizing which seeks to be rigorous and careful.”  A C Grayling in the Introduction to Philosophy 1. “This makes it, … Continue reading →

For those who did not pursue the links in the Larry Boland CR Scholar post, you missed a treat in the anthropological study of the economists. A sample: