"we do not believe the whole of philosophy to be worth one hour's effort"

Posts from the “Methodology” Category

Mike Huemer on the Shortcomings of Both Analytic and Continental Philosophy

Michael Huemer, philosopher at UC Boulder, recently published two entries at his blog on the shortcomings of both analytic and continental philosophy. Near the end of the one on analytic philosophy, he says: Academic philosophers are so used to defining issues in this way (to create jobs for conceptual analysts, so to speak) that, if you try to discuss a normal point, philosophers will often misunderstand you, because they will try to get you to be making some ‘conceptual point’ that can be verified or refuted by analysis, deduction, and hypothetical examples. In the middle of the post on continental philosophy, he says: The style is largely the opposite of that of analytic phil. Continental writers are generally much less clear about what they’re…

Categories: From Elsewhere, Methodology, Philosophy

Lemoine Against Popper’s Falsificationism

D. B. M.

Posted on 05/29/2019

Have you heard people say that scientific theories are falsifiable, and it’s this feature that sets science apart from, say, superstition? Or, more strongly, that falsification is what sets science apart from every other method of inquiry? Philippe Lemoine, philosophy grad student at Cornell, argues that the popular understanding of Karl Popper’s falsificationist philosophy of science is false. Read it here. He’s also written a follow-up post answering several objections and criticisms here.