CLPEX Chat Board

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.

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?