“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, in Popperian terms, irrefutable, which in Popperian terms means that it is vacuous” A C Grayling, Scepticism and the Possibility of Knowledge, 2009, p. 159.
The point is that Grayling has confused Popperian testability with the positivists criterion of meaning. A first year student who makes that mistake should be told to read Popper more carefully. What do you say to a luminary in the profession, and the publishers of the book?
Popper practiced rigour but did not boast about it the way the analytical philosophers do.
It may help to know that Graylings two mentors were Alfred Ayer and Strawson. Ayer was a friend of Popper in the1930s and introduced him to British philosophers when Popper was looking for help to get out of Austria. Incidentally Ayer was an early British follower of the Vienna Circle, he was accepted at Circle meetings in the early 1930s and wrote “Language, Truth and Logic” which became the English language bible of positivisim after WW2.
However Ayer came to think of Popper as a “dreadful person” (according to Bill Bartley) and his book on 20th century philosophy has two very short references to Popper, one rubbishing Popper’s non-justificationism and the other rubbishing his “three world” theory. Clearly Grayling has followed in Ayer’s footsteps on both points. Coincidentally his book on scepticism has two refs to Popper, one noted above and and the other curtly dismissing Popper’s three world theory. Maybe he never read Popper, just Ayer:)
More on the attention that analytical philosophers are supposed to pay to the use of terms. “It is often pointed out that analytic philosophy is not a school of thought, but a style or method of philosophical thinking; in this volume’s precursor I described it as ‘a style of philosohizing which seeks to be rigorous and careful, which at times makes use of ideas and techniques from logic, and which is aware of what is happening in science. It is, in particular, alert to linguistic considerations, not because of an interest in language for its own sake, but because it is through language that we grasp the concepts we use, and it is by means of language that we express our beliefs and assumptions. One of the principal methods of analytic philosophy is analysis of the concepts we employ in thinking about ourselves and the world; not surprisingly, this is called ‘conceptual analysis’.” From the Introduction to Philosophy 2.
How can you do a conceptual analysis of Popper’s views on testing and emerge with the idea that “in Popperian terms”, to be untestable or irrefutable, is vacuous?
Perhaps these quotes have been taken out of context, because the conclusion does not seem to follow. That one is seeking precision, rigour, and care does not entail that one’s claims are irrefutable. Moreover, one should distinguish between the psychological and logical senses of irrefutable. Some statements are necessary truths (or reinforced dogmatisms) and may be accurately described as irrefutable in some objective sense. However, even a necessary truth may be refutable in a subjective sense of being convinced by an argument, because we may err when accepting criticism.
It just means AP is well-tested before publication. KRP was fairly APish himself
Peter,
At least, it means that analytic philosophy is well-tested for rigour before publication.
What else could it be tested for? What isn’t covered by rigour?
The use of “irrefutable” here means empirically irrefutable. Which is true. But the idea that Popper would therefore think it’s vacuous is the idea that Popper’s a positivist…
Yes, the point is that Grayling has confused Popperian testability with the positivists criterion of meaning. A first year student who mades that mistake should be told to read Popper more carefully. What do you say to a luminary in the profession, and the publishers of the book?
Popper practiced rigour but did not boast about it the way the analytical philosophers do.
It may help to know that Graylings two mentors were Alfred Ayer and Strawson. Ayer was a friend of Popper in the1930s and introduced him to British philosophers when Popper was looking for help to get out of Austria. Incidentally Ayer was an early British follower of the Vienna Circle, he was accepted at Circle meetings in the early 1930s and wrote “Language, Truth and Logic” which became the English language bible of positivisim after WW2.
However Ayer came to think of Popper as a “dreadful person” (according to Bill Bartley) and his book on 20th century philosophy has two very short references to Popper, one rubbishing Popper’s non-justificationism and the other rubbishing his “three world” theory. Clearly Grayling has followed in Ayer’s footsteps on both points. Coincidentally his book on scepticism has two refs to Popper, one noted above and and the other curtly dismissing Popper’s three world theory. Maybe he never read Popper, just Ayer:)