The Popperian SSL in his article "The absolute antagonisms difficult to understand," published in the magazine Catoblepas (No. 16), a critique of the Bunge book "Crisis and reconstruction of the philosophy that begins with criticism of the criticism made by Bunge to the supposed autonomy of Popper's World 3 course, of which the third Bunge said «(...) World War did not leave a crumb of the 'objective mind' of Dilthey or equally imaginary 'world 3' of Popper.. " SSL said that Popper anticipated criticism when he wrote: "shall consider two thought experiments: Experiment 1: All machines and tools have been destroyed, along with all our subjective learning, including the subjective knowledge of machines, tools, and how to use. However, libraries survive and our ability to learn in them. It is clear that, after many hardships, our world can jump-start again. Experiment 2: As above, have been destroyed machinery and tools, along with our subjective learning including our subjective knowledge of machines, tools and how to use them. But this time, were also destroyed all the libraries, so our ability to learn from books becomes useless. If we reflect on these two experiments, may look a little more clearly the reality, significance and degree of autonomy of the third world (and their effects on the second and first.) This is because, in the second case, our civilization would not emerge until after many millennia. ". But if we look at Popper's appointment see that SSL is wrong, as a third world war would not be nuclear in nature or libraries nor human brains "subjective learning" about things, then there would be no ideas or theories right or wrong (world 3) without brains that design and, therefore, Bunge counterexample disproves the supposed autonomy of the world 3.SSL tells us that the ideas "... are real as a human creation (as are real works of nests and other animals) and especially because it can indirectly act on the matter", but below are grossly inconsistent writing about social classes: "But the 'social classes' are not concepts and entities. The concepts can be quite useful, but are mental constructs: they have no existence real "good" ones left, concepts or ideas are real or not?. If we define the real as the material is clear that the ideas are not real to not be material and its "existence" is merely contextual, sham and pretense. For example, electrons exist in the context of material reality, but the "ghosts" exist in the context of mythology, not reality, but that does not prevent some children and ignorant this "idea" has infused a real fear, the result of brain processes, materials, concepts do not exist or "ghostly" do not even have a reference critical real.SSL Bunge the following statement: "A few skeptics have doubted the power of reason to establish mathematical formulas beyond the shadow of a doubt. The reason is that mathematics is not given but we built it and is, therefore, entirely under human control. "Writing," Popper says expressly (ref. 2, pp. 249) that the sequence numbers is a human creation, but that these have properties (to be even or odd, prime, when reaching the Goldbach conjecture and Euclid's theorem according to which there is no greatest prime, & c.) than anyone had imagined and had to discover. The math is not at all "totally under human control" (see ref. 6) (despite having been created by man) and this is what Popper calls "the relative autonomy of world 3 '." Properties of numbers are not objective properties similar to that found in material things but inventions that are ours: we stipulate that the number divisible by 2 is even, but we could have called it another way (or pair have called a number divisible by another number), or simply not have created the even-odd distinction. With respect to the theorem that there is no greatest prime, it was deduced from axioms and postulates arbitrarily "demonstration", as any deductive proof is entirely empty, since deductive proofs only demonstrate what is already assumed in its axioms or assumptions, then the "discovery" math is not analogous to the factual findings of science which empirical propositions are tautological and mathematics and logic. By the way, could hardly have come to the theorem of yore without having previously invented the concept as arbitrary prime divisible by 1 and itself mismo.SSL we repeated the mantra that induction Popper has no logical basis and can not demonstrate hypotheses for positive cases, only disprove a negative event and says: "Everyday experience, repeated for thousands of years, shows that the sun rises every day. By induction, we can ensure that will come within a thousand or ten million years. However, it is not. We know that in a very long time the sun is extinguished and disappears life on earth. " But here SSL commits a fallacy of logical inconsistency, since according to him the induction is not used in the sciences, but SSL "refutes" the induction can be expressed: "So far the sun has appeared on the horizon, then the sun always appear on the horizon "with the induction ... (sic):" All the stars are extinguished yet, so all the stars in the universe (including our sun) become extinct. " Is not that the inductions were left with no basis? So since you do rationale induction on stellar extinction?. While that rationale has no induction does not imply that science is not used as justification in the context of what is important is the induction of the facts to theory. The inductive conclusion need not be proven, because it is a course and all you have to ask is proof that a good course and nothing else. After all, also the axioms of geometry and the principles of logic have no logical basis (they are untestable), but that does not not used in critical ciencias.SSL also examples existential hypothesis Bunge argues: "Even so, empirical confirmation can be conclusive in the case of existential assumptions, such as' there are atoms', 'no genes" "There are oligopolies" and "no political democracies." In such cases, a single positive example is sufficient to confirm the hypothesis "writing," the examples given by Bunge, are not existential hypothesis. For Epicurus, the atomic theory was an unprovable hypothesis. For Dalton, was an indirect deduction, from chemical phenomena, and was a theory instrumental. There are already plenty of evidence, but this is another "atom" (as well considering it was called indivisible, the last particle). The same happened with the genes Mendel never "found" a gene to confirm the hypothesis of its existence but its existence inferred indirectly. And the existence of political democracy depends on a prior definition (not easy). For many, the U.S. is a political democracy. For others it is a plutocracy, and elections are purely formal. Nobody doubts that "there is terrorism," but has not yet been able to define properly. " It is irrelevant what Epicurus and Dalton 'opinions on atoms, as we now know that exist objectively and are not indivisible. With respect to genes, the method of indirect evidence that Mendel used to discover the genes does not commit to anything the objective existence of genes. After all, detectives also use that method of indirect evidence to find the criminals, and if they find a criminal with a method that no one would deny that "there is a guy who murdered-so" only because no one was directly a guy pull the trigger to blow her brains out-so, right?. That the definition of democracy is not easy does not follow that there is democracy and that democracy is not perfect or not set rousseauneano an ideal mold does not follow that no democracy is a kind of residual (Schumpeter), but the empirical democracy after all.
