DIVERGENCE BETWEEN SCIENCE AND ART Reading Joseph Agassi’s Popper and his popula

DIVERGENCE BETWEEN SCIENCE AND ART

Reading Joseph Agassi’s Popper and his popular critics.

Wonderful, insightful, lucid writing that I am envious of.

Inspired by late chapter on intentional conflation of art and science: Feyerabend. Rorty. Etc.

It is not necessary to eliminate fable, metaphor, analogy and poetry from political life. Its is necessary to remove advocacy and justification for theft from our institutions. If the law must, like science, bear the burden of truth, not only in its enforcement, but also in its construction, then romance, poetry, analogy, myth and metaphor, are no danger.

Feyerabend did not understand (i think) the reason for the division between arts and science as a moral hazard. It was hard enough to escape mysticism. He did not grasp that we had not yet found truth.

We lacked a definition of truth. With truth defined, and truth necessary and required in the construction of law, art may communicate without moral hazard. The moral hazard is gone.

The only moral truth is voluntary transfer. All else is logical contradiction. All truth is performative. And all proof of knowledge constructive.

The reason for 2500 years of philosophical confusion was insufficient emphasis on demonstration. Most likely because geometry was barely distinguishable from magic to the greeks.

( I can improve and expand upon this argument , but the gist if it is correct. )