Ayer crossed my bows when I was working on a thesis. He's right and he's wrong! Well, IMHO. He's right that many philosophical statements (or statements of "fact") cannot be logically proven, but he's wrong when he contends that this lack of absolute provability renders them worthless.

As the article stated, it all came out of believing what Wittgenstein had to say. Or at least, choosing to act as if they believed him which, as Ayre would probably have contended, is as far as logical proof could be taken empirically.

What was that old saw about the observer altering the state if the subject being studied?

But ... Wittgenstein was a beery swine, but not as sloshed as Schlagel.


The idiot also known as Capfka ...