Re: Origin of Chinese spoken languages - 7th evidence
From: Des Small (des.small_at_bristol.ac.uk)
Date: 10/31/04
- Next message: Paul J Kriha: "Re: A Simplified Number System"
- Previous message: Peter T. Daniels: "Re: OT: A Better Keyboard"
- In reply to: Peter T. Daniels: "Re: Origin of Chinese spoken languages - 7th evidence"
- Next in thread: Peter T. Daniels: "Re: Origin of Chinese spoken languages - 7th evidence"
- Reply: Peter T. Daniels: "Re: Origin of Chinese spoken languages - 7th evidence"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 13:13:16 GMT
"Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@worldnet.att.net> writes:
> Des Small wrote:
> >
> > "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@worldnet.att.net> writes:
> >
> > > SJ wrote:
> > > > A theory should be able to predict not yet observed pattern in
> > > > the future observations. If not, it's not science, at least
> > > > according to
> > >
> > > I repeat: why do you think history is a predictive science? What are
> > > "future observations" of history?
> > >
> > > > Karl Popper. Science philosophy based on the Vienna school has been
> > > > dominant in modern science.
> > >
> > > Scientists don't do philosophy of science.
> >
> > Except when they do, of course.
>
> And when they do, they play the fool.
Except, of course, when they don't - Medawar himself being a case in
point.
> > I went to the recent Medawar Lecture, given at Bristol by the
> > philosopher Peter Lipton, on "The Truth About Science," in which he
> > remarked that Popper's philosophy of science is very much more popular
> > with scientists than contemporary philosophers of science.
>
> That's like "transformational grammar" being very much more popular with
> psychologists than with linguists.
Everyone outside linguistics accepts Chomsky's preeminence in the
discipline. It is so very wearing!
> > On other accounts I've heard, the "demarcation problem" (developing
> > criteria to distinguish "science" from "non-science") simply went out
> > of philosophical fashion, no more solved than when it came in.
> >
> > But it's not every day you see a troll wielding the Popper Bat!
>
> Is that anything like Wittgenstein's Poker?
It is slightly more metaphysical, but otherwise very similar,
Des
is protected by the Hoary Hosts of Husserl
-- "[T]he structural trend in linguistics which took root with the International Congresses of the twenties and early thirties [...] had close and effective connections with phenomenology in its Husserlian and Hegelian versions." -- Roman Jakobson
- Next message: Paul J Kriha: "Re: A Simplified Number System"
- Previous message: Peter T. Daniels: "Re: OT: A Better Keyboard"
- In reply to: Peter T. Daniels: "Re: Origin of Chinese spoken languages - 7th evidence"
- Next in thread: Peter T. Daniels: "Re: Origin of Chinese spoken languages - 7th evidence"
- Reply: Peter T. Daniels: "Re: Origin of Chinese spoken languages - 7th evidence"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|