The way I use Deutschian is to separate the Popperians from that. You have people who agree with Popper and disagree with Deutsch and people who agree with Popper and Deutsch. So using Deutschian is a convenient way of talking about the latter. I don’t think Deutsch has added anything of interest to critical rationalism.
You don’t have to offer an alternative. If a criticism has been given, that is a problem for the proponents to solve. Asking for an alternative is a way to avoid criticism.
Of course you don't have to. You don't have to do anything. But absent the alternative, criticising (eg) Newtonian gravity by saying "this planet does not follow the path predicted by it" only makes the situation problematic. Is the theory wrong, the observation wrong or is there some other explanation consistent with the theory to explain things (eg: yet another planet so far unobserved perturbing the orbit). In other words: your "criticism" is just a problem to be solved. It's not avoiding the criticism: it's just saying *you are not in a position to say* whether the criticism is genuine or apparent. And you won't know until there is an alternative!
If the criticism is problematic in the first case, it is problematic still when you offer an explanation. Since even an untrue explanation with can have true consequences. A further explanation doesn’t change the problematic nature of the criticism.
The problematic nature of the criticism, as you call it, seems to be of a piece with fallibilism. Offering an explanation doesn’t reduce the fallibility.
You are an absolute powerhouse. Appreciate you ♾️
Curious about your thoughts on the Willow Quantum Computer News by Google!
The way I use Deutschian is to separate the Popperians from that. You have people who agree with Popper and disagree with Deutsch and people who agree with Popper and Deutsch. So using Deutschian is a convenient way of talking about the latter. I don’t think Deutsch has added anything of interest to critical rationalism.
You don’t have to offer an alternative. If a criticism has been given, that is a problem for the proponents to solve. Asking for an alternative is a way to avoid criticism.
Of course you don't have to. You don't have to do anything. But absent the alternative, criticising (eg) Newtonian gravity by saying "this planet does not follow the path predicted by it" only makes the situation problematic. Is the theory wrong, the observation wrong or is there some other explanation consistent with the theory to explain things (eg: yet another planet so far unobserved perturbing the orbit). In other words: your "criticism" is just a problem to be solved. It's not avoiding the criticism: it's just saying *you are not in a position to say* whether the criticism is genuine or apparent. And you won't know until there is an alternative!
If the criticism is problematic in the first case, it is problematic still when you offer an explanation. Since even an untrue explanation with can have true consequences. A further explanation doesn’t change the problematic nature of the criticism.
The problematic nature of the criticism, as you call it, seems to be of a piece with fallibilism. Offering an explanation doesn’t reduce the fallibility.
I am in a position to guess that. You a justificationist?
interesting you don't reference Trump in relation to truth but you did reference Harris for her campaign language