Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
From: Richard Herring (junk_at_[127.0.0.1)
Date: 02/07/05
- Next message: ošin: "Re: JSH: Reality versus what you say"
- Previous message: David C. Ullrich: "Re: JSH: Reality versus what you say"
- In reply to: Lester Zick: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Next in thread: Albert: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Reply: Albert: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Reply: Lester Zick: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2005 11:01:41 +0000
In message <4203fe25.4650632@netnews.att.net>, Lester Zick
<lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net> writes
>On Fri, 4 Feb 2005 10:17:57 +0000, Richard Herring <junk@[127.0.0.1]>
>in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>
>[. . .]
>
>>>The difficulty is algebra defines a variety of relationships some of
>>>which are not transcendental and some of which are. I don't see the
>>>problem using the term transcendental for transcendental concepts and
>>>what? linear?
>>
>>Algebraic, as people keep telling you.
>
>Except you don't to respond to my objection to the term algebraic
>right above.
That's probably because I don't understand it. Are you seriously trying
to tell us that you're confused, merely because specialists use the word
"algebraic" in a way that's different from its everyday meaning?
-- Richard Herring
- Next message: ošin: "Re: JSH: Reality versus what you say"
- Previous message: David C. Ullrich: "Re: JSH: Reality versus what you say"
- In reply to: Lester Zick: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Next in thread: Albert: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Reply: Albert: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Reply: Lester Zick: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
