Continuing the story of the Popperian or Critical Rationalist mafia.
Ian Jarvie studied anthropology at the London School of Economics, drifted into Popper’s orbit and became a research assistant. He has done good work in partnership with Joe Agassi and he is one of the Popperian quiet achievers like Peter Munz, producing a steady stream of publications to break new ground and demonstrate the fertility of critical rationalism. He was also a prime mover in the journal Philosophy of the Social Sciences, an excellent journal that functions as an open house that caters for all shades of well-argued opinion.His book Concepts and Society (1972) was an exciting application of Popper’s “hot off the press” ideas on world 3 objective knowledge.
His work on Popper’s social turn calls for a radical re-reading of Popper, alonside the non-justificationist “Bartley and Miller” reading and the metaphysical turn prompted by Joe Agassi.
His website has some important unpublished papers including a tribute to Bill Bartley and a paper on the 20 or 30 problems in sociology and politics that Popper helpfully addressed in The Open Society and its Enemies (in your face to people who think Popper was only an eccentric positivist in the philosophy of science).
Don’t miss his on-line publications on films, the film industry, the cultural impact of films and film stars.
Alan Musgrave took a chair in New Zealand, repeating Popper’s journey to the end of the earth, though by choice (to take a Chair at a very young age) rather than necessity (to escape the Holocaust).
In an interview for the Australian journal Metascience he provided some very illuminating insights into the atmosphere at the London School of Economics in the prime of the (doomed) Popper and Lakatos partnership. And into the duties of Popper’s research assistants.
Popper was a workaholic, of course. Every day-except Tuesdays when he came to the LSE-he worked. He wrote long-hand in huge letters, casting pages to the floor. His wife picked them up, numbered.them, and typed them.
What did I do? I opened his voluminous mail and replied to most of it. I ferreted out stuff for him. Most important, I read his manuscripts and criticised them.
Was that at his request?
Of course. Mind you, it was hard going. My first encounter was typical. He had ‘written something and invited me to `correct’ it. He warned me that he was old and sick, so I should not be too hard on him. With the temerity of youth, I said that a comma was misplaced and that `As to X’ should be `As for Y. Out came the OED, Fowler, and a host of other sources.
An hour later I was stylistically vanquished. Those for whom English is a second language know and care more about it than the English. After a day of this, the `sick old man’ drove me to the station at 10 p.m., and I promptly fell asleep on the train, exhausted.
Thanks for this. The Metascience interview is fascinating.
rafe, thanks for the links.
I like the economics of films – and not only because it is an excuse to study a personal interest. Sports economists have the same failing.
The guiding light of the business of films is Goldman’s law: nobody knows nothing! Radical uncertainty on how to meet the audience’s insatiable desire for novelty.
Name any major film from 1970 to 1975: Steve McQueen passed on the lead role. Name any major film from 1977 to 1980: James Caan passed on the lead role.
For an industry of neurotics and narcissists, they do pretend to smile and applaud graciously when someone else goes to collect the Oscar they could have won.
Mises in The Anti-Capitalist Mentality noted that narcissism is an occupational hazard in show business, also it is fiercely competitive and by way of compensation many stars and starlets take on socialism to demonstrate that they are really nice people underneath.