Discussion:
Actual vs "Potential for" Rigour in the Popper Deutsch Work
hibbsa
2013-06-23 21:40:39 UTC
Permalink
The Popper/Deutsch philosophy defines a genuinely compelling set of principles for how philosophy - and science - can be done most rigorously. At the centre of this is, of course, the concept of criticism.

I have never - and still don't - doubt the potential of the philosophy when followed to deliver all that it promises. However, something that I am thinking about at the moment is the scale on which the philosophy has been developed.

For comparison, we might look at science. That domain has the sort of critical mass that pretty much ensures that a theory will receive critical feedback from a very wide range of viewpoints.

On the other hand the Popper Deutsch philosophy appears to have emerged out of a very small group of largely like-minded individuals. How many key players have their been? There's Popper himself. Then there's Deutsch. Who else?

Then, how many internal critics have there been to help these two giants develop their ideas?

Out of this a number of questions emerge in my mind. How many of the principles developed either by Popper or Deutsch, ever faced serious competition from alternative principles or theories?

For example Deutsch's proposal of a 'culture of criticism' as the key development that gave rise to the massive knowledge development. How much critical resistance did this idea ever face?

If the answer is, not very much, what does that say about the robustness of these principles?
David Deutsch
2013-06-23 21:48:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by hibbsa
On the other hand the Popper Deutsch philosophy appears to have emerged out of a very small group of largely like-minded individuals. How many key players have their been? There's Popper himself. Then there's Deutsch. Who else?
Bronowski.

-- David Deutsch

Loading...