Steve, You wrote [OPE-L:4154]: > science has moved on a long way from Popper, his litmus test between a > science and a non-science--that the former makes statements which can be > falsified, whereas the latter makes it impossible to either verify or > disconfirm itself--is still accepted. By whom? As I understand it (I'm no expert) it is not accepted, as a general rule, by current 'philosophers of science' (it hasn't been since Feyerabend), nor therefore by current 'economic methodologists' (who tend to be some years behind the philospohy of science discipline). Far from it, the current vogue is a 'return to practice' which means rejecting the 'prescriptivism' typified by Popper and (lamely) *describing* what scientists actually do. I certainly don't agree with Popper's 'litmus test'. I don't think Marx did in the slightest (nor do I agree with the current 'philosophy of science' - obvioulsy Marx doesn't). However, I'm not really sure where people on this list stand on the 'litmus test'. Fred stated agreement with Gil on this I think. It is an important question anyway. Andy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 31 2000 - 00:00:10 EST