| | If no one has a non-troll reply, can we agree that there are not outstanding refutations of Popperian epistemology? And that Objectivism needs one in order to rescue its points which Popper contradicts.
This is a non-troll reply.
There are many serious criticisms to Popperian Epistemology, so the answer to the question of "can we agree that there are not outstanding refutations of Popperian epistemology?" is a simple, "No."
-----------------
You wrote, "And that Objectivism needs one in order to rescue its points which Popper contradicts." Your language here leaves one wondering what "one" is referring to. If I refer back to the previous sentence to hunt for a subject I come up with "outstanding refutations" - but clearly you weren't intending to say that there are no outstanding refutations/criticisms of Rand. I'm guessing that you meant to say that you have delivered criticisms of Rand's epistemology, and that in your opinion they haven't been refuted, therefore Objectivist Epistemology is not knowledge.
That is, to my mind, a very peculiar way to engage in what appears to a kind of self-delusion. You present theories that start out saying that everyone is fallible, but you don't really apply it to yourself. Then you ignore any criticisms, call them troll replies, or ignorance or failure to try to understand, and then you finish up by saying, "Well, there are no refutations, therefore, what I said is knowledge and what you said is not."
It is a very clever system... as psychological self-massages go, but I certainly don't see it as the answer to a process for non-contradictory integration of new ideas into an individual's existing contextual, hierarchical structure of ideas in a way that gives him a high correspondence with reality.
|
|
