I had the privilege of watching a video by Susan Haack regarding some heavy critique of Popper and the SCOTUS accepting his premises in the Daubert decision.
Video
Article (An article outlining the same information)
It's a little heady because it deals with some epistemological issues, but it's the most valid critique I've heard. (as opposed to the Simon Cole's, Roger Koppl's, and Habers)
At the end of the video she makes mention to her own Theory of Evidence which philosophically is referred to as Foundherentism ( a synthesis of Foundationalism and Coherentism).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundherentism
If you want the cliff notes, let me know.
If anyone has some thoughts, I'd love to hear them.
Susan Haack - Theory of Evidence - critique of Popper
-
Boyd Baumgartner
- Posts: 567
- Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2005 11:03 am
-
Neville
- Posts: 307
- Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2006 11:44 am
- Location: NEW ZEALAND
Re: Susan Haack - Theory of Evidence - critique of Popper
Hi Boyd
Having waded my way through it I can honestly say the Popper science is a crock.
To put so much of ones life into something so worthless I am sure if I were Popper I would have blown my head off and put all future generations out of their misery.
I think if the judges could have been a little more confused than they obviously were it may have made things easier for us.
I guess we will just continue down the scientific route that Popper appears to have despised.
Is that what we call Justice then?
Having waded my way through it I can honestly say the Popper science is a crock.
To put so much of ones life into something so worthless I am sure if I were Popper I would have blown my head off and put all future generations out of their misery.
I think if the judges could have been a little more confused than they obviously were it may have made things easier for us.
I guess we will just continue down the scientific route that Popper appears to have despised.
Is that what we call Justice then?