[Revisiting NA’s archives to rename the tags, we got the idea of starting an episodic serie entitled PhilosophyForBloggers. We’ll start with Popper. The tag “popper” should be populated soon.]
Popper is quite popular in climate blogland. Way more than it can be in philosophy. Why is that so?
Eric,
You’re most welcome. Notice how the discussion has developed:
First, people started by questioning the very idea of saying that there are “facts” in science. That’s not very difficult to do. One only has to rehearse the (naive) falsificationism that has currency over the Internetz. There is no certainty in science; science is conjecture and falsification; etc.
(Source: collide-a-scape.com)
The problem to think about is whether it is good enough to carry a political consensus […]
This kind of “good enough” criteria never seems to suffice for market regulation, but oftentimes found “good enough” for deregulation. This works so well as to create a path of infinite resistance against any kind of regulation for complex systems.
