🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <BxIA0y.2F9@unx.sas.com> Gary Merrill writes:
> [All sorts of stuff]

Gary, what are you arguing about?

You have made a couple of statements about a list of philosophers that I
proposed as a beginning list of important philosophers of science,
namely Feyerabend, Kuhn, Lakatos, and Popper. You have said they are
representative of a single "school" or "tradition." You have
characterized them as all reacting against positivism.

I have asserted that this characterization of this group as being of a
single school is indefensible. I have tried to point out sepearate
influences on separate philosophers among these four. I have tried to
indicate how there's more to at least some of these than a mere reaction
against positivism. (Note that the points at issue here are not whether
they are individually right or wrong, whether they are of importance or
not, or whether positivism is correct or not (although we have brought
up these questions to a very limited extent)).

Have you defended your position? Have you retracted it? No, all you have
done is respond with insults. I admit that I have not been particularly
polite, although I think you took some comments I made jestingly in a
different light. I have been candid about the gaps in my reading, and I
am going to look up your essay.

And your insults do not even reflect what I posted:

>...That you apparently wish to judge the contemporary state of
>philospohy of science on the basis of this and ignorance of more
>recent samplings speaks for itself.

Where have I offered to "judge the contemporary state of" anything? At
best, I may have given a few impressionistic comments.

                                                Robert Vienneau

P.S. On the subject of importance, your comments do make me wonder. I
assume that if Karl Popper is important anywhere, it is in the
philosophy of science. I accept frequency of referencing as a quick
rough and ready measure of influence. So your comment,

>...(By
>the way, I just looked throuth *two* sets of proceedings of the Philosophy
>of Science Association to nail down dates on Popper and could not find
>a *single* reference to him in *any* of the bibliographies.  Is this a
>measure of "stature"?)

does cause me some cognitive dissonance. Anybody else want to offer an
opinion?
--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80