WHAT IS THE NEXT ITERATION AFTER CRITICAL RATIONALISM? (worth repeating) I consi

WHAT IS THE NEXT ITERATION AFTER CRITICAL RATIONALISM?

(worth repeating)

I consider myself a critical rationalist as far as it goes. But:

1) I practice the art with much higher technical standards necessary to reduce or eliminate error and deception. In my view I practice philosophy as science not rationalism. It is possible that I have come to see all rationalism as justification. I am not yet certain. I do however understand the very great difference between daydreaming, thinking, reasoning, calculating and computing. And that reason is vastly inferior to calculation. And that if I am correct, and property provides us with commensurability then moral and political conflicts are marginally calculable.

2) I do not believe that CP is empirically true although it is logically true. Only formal study will answer this question but at present the evidence certainly appears to bear out my bias.

3) I do not believe criticism is as productive a means of innovation as exhausting theories and reforming them – which is why scientists practice exhaustion not criticism. The reason is scientists pursue goals (problems), not knowledge for its own sake (puzzles).

4) There is no difference between any method of investigation or production other than the value attributed to different outputs of the method we call the scientific method.

5) Although I believe Miller’s loosely correct, I also believe his emphasis on formal logic (sets) is not equal in value to operational articulation, and is likewise subject to verbalism. In fact, in large part I see the era of set operations involving language as passé, and that like law, functions and operations defeat sets and set membership. In fact, I see Cantorian sets as one of the great disasters of intellectual history.

(Not that anyone here is going to follow what the hell I’m talking about…)