Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
From: Lester Zick (lesterDELzick_at_worldnet.att.net)
Date: 03/23/05
- Next message: stephen_at_nomail.com: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Previous message: stephen_at_nomail.com: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- In reply to: Giuseppe Bilotta: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Next in thread: Giuseppe Bilotta: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Reply: Giuseppe Bilotta: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 22:33:45 GMT
On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 21:49:16 +0100, Giuseppe Bilotta
<bilotta78@hotpop.com> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>Lester Zick wrote:
>> It's not so much circular, Daryl, as not a definition.
>
>What is a definition?
A list of predicates stated in relation to one another. In the case of
the term infinite the only predicate is specific lack of definition.
Things defined as infinite lack some specific character in certain
respects which have certain implications for operations or other
circumstances specified in terms of that specific character..
Regards - Lester
- Next message: stephen_at_nomail.com: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Previous message: stephen_at_nomail.com: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- In reply to: Giuseppe Bilotta: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Next in thread: Giuseppe Bilotta: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Reply: Giuseppe Bilotta: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
Loading