Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
From: robert j. kolker (nowhere_at_nowhere.net)
Date: 02/13/05
- Next message: robert j. kolker: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Previous message: jstevh_at_msn.com: "Re: I was right, surrogate factoring proof"
- In reply to: Allan C Cybulskie: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Next in thread: Lester Zick: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Reply: Lester Zick: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 12:09:55 -0500
Allan C Cybulskie wrote:
> Well, you pretty much said that a notion of cause and effect is pretty much
> required for us to have an idea of the world that we can understand (hence
> we always seek causes when we seek to understand the world). And that's
> really all that Kant said about causation.
It is what WE need. It says nothing about external reality. By the we
way -observe- cause and effect all the time. It is the necessary
connection between the two that we never observe.
Bob Kolker
- Next message: robert j. kolker: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Previous message: jstevh_at_msn.com: "Re: I was right, surrogate factoring proof"
- In reply to: Allan C Cybulskie: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Next in thread: Lester Zick: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Reply: Lester Zick: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|