Date: Thu, 30 Mar 1995 19:32:20 -0500 (EST)
Subject: PKF: Re: PKF a skeptic or not?


Suppose the following:
1. Logic is a guideline for proposing arguments.
2. The purpose of argument is to critically examine tentative answers to
questions.
3.  Therefore--those who avoid logic avoid putting their theories to 
critical test.
4. Also--if mysticism, art, astrology, and Feyerabendians avoid logic, 
they avoid putting their views to critical test (and/or protect their 
assumptions and mythologies from examination).
Question:  is there an alternative to the use of logic for conducting  
argument (rational discussion) among those with differing answers to the 
same questions?

On Sat, 25 Mar 1995, Magala, Dr. S.J. wrote:

> The negative response of Feyerabend, to make a long story short, was 
> to the underlying assumption of Popper that there is a logic of 
> scientific discovery, i.e. that philosophy of science is a sort of a 
> thought police for a professional community of scholars and 
> scientists ( actually Popper himself is a weaker version of the 
> Vienna Circle belief that it is possible to define and apply the 
> exact philosophy of language as the supreme judge of the ultimate 
> court of reason ). Feyerabend compares art, religion and science and 
> concludes that rules applied by such police have to be logically 
> empty in order to be psychologically attractive, but by being 
> logically empty they cannot be a fundament of reason amen
> S.
> 

     ------------------