Comments Elsewhere

Paul,

The method that Popper suggests is perfectly reasonable, if your interlocutor is using language clearly and consistently, and if the terms she is using do not presuppose something that is false. But the linguistic situation that Roderick’s addressing isn’t like that: his claim is precisely that the words “capitalism” and “socialism,” as commonly used, don’t have a clear and consistent meaning, because they are defined so as to have an internal inconsistency, and to rest on a false presupposition (viz., the identity of the free market and actually existing neomercentilist outfits). If someone is using language unclearly or inconsistently it does no good to accept their terminology as-is in an attempt to get down to the factual questions, because there is no way to get down to factual questions through nonsense. Hence the point of using techniques like precisifying definitions, analytic distinctions, simple abandonment of some terms in favor of others (e.g. “capitalism” for “the free market” or “laissez-faire,” etc.)

Of course, you may disagree with Rod that the situation with “capitalism” and “socialism” is what he claims it to be, but then that’s a substantive disagreement over how people are in fact using the terms, not a disagreement over the method of criticizing unclear or inconsistent usage.