Content-Type: |
TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII |
Sender: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Date: |
Wed, 1 Mar 2000 23:52:23 -0500 |
In-Reply-To: |
<005101bf83c1$f607db20$9229153f@mypc> |
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Reply-To: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
On Wed, 1 Mar 2000, gordon wrote:
> > I agree that more attention to should be paid to questions of what
> > counts as evidence and what does not in these (and other) fields.
>
> I'm glad you agree. However you've also taken the precarious position that
> the positivist demand for evidence is incoherent, so I need to ask on what
> grounds you think evidence is something to which we must "pay attention".
I didn't take that position at all. Positivism has no monopoly
on taking evidence seriously. I don't say that positivism's
"demand for evidence" is incoherent; I say that positivism is
incoherent. The verification principle is self-refuting,
therefore whatever is understood as evidence should not be based
on it.
> If positivism has been "decisively refuted" as you claim, Todd, then why
> should anyone care at all about evidence? Why shouldn't we accept all claims
> as true without evidence?
That is a false dilemma: Either positivism is true or evidence
doesn't matter. Epistemology didn't die when positivism did.
Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]
|
|
|