critical rationalism blog

I am just about to address O’Hear’s defence of induction in reply to Popper. But first a check on the problem. What is the point of mounting a defence of Popperism, or CR or whatever? Bearing in mind that the core of Popperism is criticism, so there can be no such thing as an uncritical follower of Popper, why spend so much time and effort giving the appearance of defending Popper’s ideas like a typical follower of Freud or Marx or any other True Belief?

Moreover, if good scientists and practical people proceed in a Popperian manner, that is, problem-solving with a mix of imagination, reason and observation, do they need a deep philosophical defence? Surely the good ideas will win out over the defective ideas by a process that approximates  natural selection for the “fittest” and “best”.

I will finish this later but will put up the draft at this point in case people want to comment on these thoughts.

A serious and good philosophical work could be written consisting entirely of jokes.

Witt

Popper does better in the Index of this volume (compared with one entry and three pages in Vol 1). Here we find pages 63, 201, 235, 237, 238-9 and 461-3.

The favourable impression is not supported by the content. Continue reading →

Wittgenstein is credited with the distinction of triggering not just one but two revolutions in philosophy,  however it is important to note that they both led his followers into dead ends.

Peter Munz wrote a really good book on the superiority of Popper to Witt genstein and then later he wrote another that tried to marry them. My review of the second is a bit weak because I don’t like slamming books by friends, unlike George Orwell. He wrote a harsh review of something by Arthur Koestler and Arthur asked why he could not have gone a bit easier for a friend. Orwell replied that it never occurred to him! Continue reading →

“the missionary possibility immediately suggested itself of promoting the university’s conception of what is central to philosophical study. This volume is the result.”

The object of this investigation is to find where the thoughts of Popper and critical rationalism stand in the mainstream of academic philosophy at the end of the 20^th century. The subject is Philosophy 1: A Guide Through the Subject, edited by A C Grayling, Oxford University Press, 1998, 670 pages. Continue reading →

“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

 A C (Anthony) Grayling (1949 – ) is the very model of the modern professional and public intellectual. He has published many scholarly books, he has worked at the frontier of knowledge in his field (scepticism and justification), he has edited books for comprehensive undergraduate and postgraduate studies in philosophy, he has been active as an officer and editor in the associations and journals of the profession, he has engaged with some of the big moral and political questions of modern times and he has tirelessly written popular pieces, for many years on a weekly basis.

He is so embedded in the profession, so wide-ranging and so prolific that he is likely to embody whatever is good and not so good about modern academic philosophy in the rationalist and analytical tradition. Playing the role of the helpful critic I will have to focus on what is not so good. Continue reading →