THE CONSEQUENCE OF CRITICAL RATIONALISM IS PERFORMATIVE TRUTH. What is the diffe

THE CONSEQUENCE OF CRITICAL RATIONALISM IS PERFORMATIVE TRUTH.

What is the difference then, between the critical rationalist position that we cannot know the truth of a theory, only eliminate error; and the consequential argument that I cannot know that you speak the truth, and therefore must be sure that you speak honestly and without error?

You know; the blade cuts both ways. Just as in science we are constrained to constructing recipes and eliminating error, in all our arguments we are constrained to operational descriptions, and defending against deception.

Not sure how critical rationalists who buy into Popperian platonism feel about that – but I think it is an inescapable consequence of the critical rationalist assertion.

We can construct recipes. We can testify to operations. That’s all we can do. Any narrative we construct is a memory device and nothing more.

Why do we need theories anyway? Justification? If I construct by verbal means, a general rule, that describes common properties of many recipes, then have I really done anything at all other than create a loose description of similar recipes? That description places no constraints on future recipes. Isnt’ this just an artifact of speech? Of verbalism? Isn’t speech a symbolic generalization of many memories? So why should we give such weight to what amounts to a verbal protocol for the purpose of simplifying communication. i mean, wouldn’t it be easier to just transfer memories of related instances? We can’t do that but that’s what our words attempt to do.

Actions not words.