Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
From: robert j. kolker (nowhere_at_nowhere.net)
Date: 02/15/05
- Next message: examachine_at_gmail.com: "Re: S. Petersburg paradox"
- Previous message: Jim Ferry: "Re: JSH: Boredom factor"
- In reply to: Albert: "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: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 09:28:40 -0500
Albert wrote:
> Spoken like a true materialist and neo-classical economist.
I don't know about neo-classical because I do not know much about
economics beyond the law of supply and demaand. But I am a materialist
and busting with pride over being so. I am not chained by idealistic
tommyrot and superstition.
Bob Kolker
> This is of course, merely empirical dogma with no claim to truth. Or to paraphrase
> your own words: It is not falsifiable and is therefore doo-doo.
Oh no! If you can show us how to be rich and happy with no tools,
instrments and gadgets I will gladly concede the point. If you can show
us how to stay alive without paying attention to things out side our
skin, I will gladly conceded the point.
Remember, we are to be happy and safe even without toothbrushes and
toilet paper.
Bob Kolker
>
- Next message: examachine_at_gmail.com: "Re: S. Petersburg paradox"
- Previous message: Jim Ferry: "Re: JSH: Boredom factor"
- In reply to: Albert: "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
|