Frank Kogan

*I'm fundamentally following Kuhn and ilk in this (whoever Mr. and Ms. Ilk are), except Kuhn would occasionally say something such as a nomenclature isn't a candidate for true or false, so he presumably wouldn't have agreed with my second assumption, that rejecting a theory is equivalent to calling it false. I'm damned if I know why he said such things, or why he wouldn't agree with my assumption. "Astrology is false" is a fine sentence.** Seemingly, although Kuhn had rejected empiricist philosophy's concept of truth, he nonetheless wanted to retain empiricist philosophy's definition of "true" as "matching theory-free evidence" or some such. The only reason I can think of for his accepting such a restriction is that this way he could hang onto the dream that philosophy could still have something deep and interesting and all-encompassing to say about capital-T Truth.

**But that's not all there is to say about astrology.