Re:Foucault’s work on power
by lutusp on Friday March 17, 2017 @01:45PM
(#13896148)
>> Karl Popper didn't invent falsifiability, he discovered it.
> Yes, and he discovered it using non-scientific techniques developed in the field of philosophy.
This misses my point, which is that anyone could have noticed the existence of falsifiability, and the fact that a philosopher noticed it means nothing. The reason? The topic is ideas, not people who uncover ideas.
> I haven't much else substantive to say, except that you seem to have a chip on your shoulder about philosophy, which you construe as the works of a small group of French intellectuals from the middle of the Twentieth century.
You're assigning to me a viewpoint I've never held nor expressed. You've also abandoned the topic.
> You're also not averse to making assumptions about the beliefs of the people you're talking to based on no evidence but your own prejudices and limited understanding.
Ah -- so it is I who is making assumptions about the beliefs of others (something I have never done). Thanks for clearing that up, and I advise you to re-read your own posts.
> That isn't conducive to fruitful conversations.
It can't hold a candle to abandoning the topic entirely and moving instead into a personal discussion bearing no relevance to the topic of discussion.
> Yes, and he discovered it using non-scientific techniques developed in the field of philosophy.
This misses my point, which is that anyone could have noticed the existence of falsifiability, and the fact that a philosopher noticed it means nothing. The reason? The topic is ideas, not people who uncover ideas.
> I haven't much else substantive to say, except that you seem to have a chip on your shoulder about philosophy, which you construe as the works of a small group of French intellectuals from the middle of the Twentieth century.
You're assigning to me a viewpoint I've never held nor expressed. You've also abandoned the topic.
> You're also not averse to making assumptions about the beliefs of the people you're talking to based on no evidence but your own prejudices and limited understanding.
Ah -- so it is I who is making assumptions about the beliefs of others (something I have never done). Thanks for clearing that up, and I advise you to re-read your own posts.
> That isn't conducive to fruitful conversations.
It can't hold a candle to abandoning the topic entirely and moving instead into a personal discussion bearing no relevance to the topic of discussion.