Quote of the day (and commentary)

Critics of critical rationalism should at least try to state clearly what it is that they are attacking. Is what is under fire the method that we propose, or is it our frank refusal to garnish our product with spurious and deceitful claims of reliability? The two are not the same, and to dress up a criticism of the second kind as a criticism of the first is simply mischievous.

Miller, D. Critical Rationalism: A Restatement and Defence


A criticism then of the type that "your method is not reliable", is not actually a criticism of the method, because critical rationalists do not claim reliability for their method. "But", you might interject "why should we adopt the method?" The only answer to that is: "you do not have to accept it; do what you want." Then we would simply ask: "have you got a criticism of the method?" Or "Have you got an alternative method that does not immediately contravene its own demands?"

If you have either of these two things we are then in a position to learn something new and to enter it into critical discussion.

This post relates to an earlier post (here). I made a defence of critical rationalism that Miller thinks is true but smacks of casuistry. I did not know he had already considered this rebuttal and put it aside. It relates to the fact that critical rationalism, although it begs the question, it does not beg the same question at each step.