Meetings with remarkable mice: j-bore

[jolly]

Since this seems now like a philosophical dispute, and not a literary one, I thought  I would, fool-like, rush in and ask you a question, Herr Bohr: when was positivist critieria such as a verificationist account of truth, or a falsifiability requirement, ever shown to be false, or inapplicable, or even unworkable? You and most post-mosters assume that they are, but I  have yet to read a clearly written deconstructionist account of why, say, scientists should no longer have to confirm their hypotheses by observation; or an argument showing that those hypotheses cannot be confirmed by observation.   
Anyways don't get snippy--- perhaps you can point me to a clearly written demolishing of positivism....
 
Relativity, for example, changed the physics paradigm, from newtonian to einsteinian, but it did not violate any empirical or positivist criteria; general relativity has been verified  numerous times in the past 60 years, especially during solar-eclipse expeditions when Einstein's light-deflection prediction can be tested.  Applying simple, quasi-hegelian dichotomies of objective/subjective is not going to solve the issue; in other words, how would a presumed post-modernist scientist operate if NOT by verification, or deductive or inductive means...

		
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
vote.yahoo.com - Register online to vote today!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20041016/e4e3cbfb/attachment.html>