Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
From: Albert (albertwagner_at_cox.net)
Date: 02/14/05
- Next message: robert j. kolker: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Previous message: aeo6: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- In reply to: Lester Zick: "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: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 16:02:06 -0600
Lester Zick wrote:
<snip>
>>Those rules that we have invented and refer to as the natural
>>laws have for us a high degree of certainty because empirical
>>evidence seems to support them. However, our invented rules that
>>we use to make sense of empirical evidence, may, at any time, be
>>falsified by new empirical evidence. We may still be in the Matrix.
>
>
> Technically a large amount of empirical evidence just doesn't
> invalidate them. The matrix is our heads. We're always inside.
<snip>
Give that man a cigar.
--
"Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the
range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally
impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it."
-- George Orwell as Syme in "1984"
- Next message: robert j. kolker: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Previous message: aeo6: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- In reply to: Lester Zick: "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
|