Cihan_Baran

This reminds me of a Karl Popper excerpt that I read several years ago. Popper levels similar charges against Marxism and Freudianism:

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/popper_falsification.html

Thanks

I don't know if it is just semantics but it seems to me that you are conflating evidence and our perception of that evidence, since you write:

"What is evidence? It is an event entangled, by links of cause and effect.. If the target of your inquiry is your shoelaces, for example, then the light entering your pupils is evidence entangled with your shoelaces."(Emphasis mine)(

Take the following thought experiment. Suppose Alan has untied shoelaces that he can see. Suppose that also Alan's shoelaces produce a barely audible sound when they are untied... (read more)

Yay! And I am honored that my mentioning of Orwell's essay lead you to discus it!

I am not quite sure I agree with this, however,:"Whatever the audience thinks you said is what you said, whether you meant to say it or not; you can't argue with the audience no matter how clever your justifications."

Doesn't this make misunderstanding or misinterpretation -just by definition- impossible? I do think misinterpretation is a genuine possibility.

Also, you left out the good bit in your Orwell quote (probably to shorten the length):

one often has a curious f

This post reminds me of George Orwell's essay "Politics and The English Language".