Monthly Archives: July 2011

Objective and Objectivist Dogmas

Posted on July 27, 2011 by Lee Kelly

Critical rationalism is sometimes mistaken to be little more than a call to be critical. Some object that advocacy of the critical attitude is hardly unique to critical rationalism; every first year philosophy student is instructed to be critical of … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | 15 Comments

New CR site to watch!

Posted on July 16, 2011 by Rafe

Thanks for the feed from Daniel Barnes who said to read a great article here. It  is the site of our new contributor ‘d’. Welcome to the party d! Keep an eye on this site!! Good to have the disgusting … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

See the Problem?

Posted on July 15, 2011 by Lee Kelly

I wrote this as a quick comment on d’s blog, but then the post disappeared for some reason. Anyway, I thought I’d share here.

Posted in Uncategorized | 5 Comments

Does Science Presuppose the Existence of Regularity in Nature?

Posted on July 14, 2011 by Lee Kelly

A popular criticism of Popper’s scientific method is that he “smuggled induction in through the back door.” Contrary to claims of having done away with it altogether, Popper’s proposed method of science actually presupposes induction. Therefore, critics argue, Popper failed … Continue reading →

Posted in logic, science | 23 Comments

Michael Williams on Popper

Posted on July 8, 2011 by Rafe

Michael Williams Problems of Knowledge: A Critical Introduction to Epistemology, Oxford Uni Press, 2001. At Amazon. Ernest Sosa, of Brown University, writes A masterly introduction to epistemology and an original contribution, this book succeeds on both levels. Those who know … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments

Critical Rationalism vs. Inductive and Subjective Interpretations of Probability

Posted on July 6, 2011 by Lee Kelly

So I am trying to understand the critical rationalist arguments against the inductive and subjective interpretations of probability. I am not all that familiar with the matter, and so I have likely made some elementary mistakes — feedback is appreciated. … Continue reading →

Posted in epistemology, logic | 74 Comments