Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
From: robert j. kolker (nowhere_at_nowhere.net)
Date: 03/03/05
- Next message: ošin: "Re: Reverse engineering surrogate factoring"
- Previous message: The Qurqirish Dragon: "Re: Minimum distance from a point to a surface defined by constraints"
- 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: Thu, 03 Mar 2005 10:23:45 -0500
Lester Zick wrote:
>
> Particle spin, Bob, unless you have some kind of empirical support to
> offer for 1+1=2 apart from examples of addition. Nice commentary
> though, Bob. Real fucking erudite.
Produce the experiment by reference to a refereed journal or shut up.
You claim the current space expansion hypothesis is false. The claim is
mathematically consistent so the only way to falsify it is by an
experiment. Produce the experiment.
Bob Kolker
- Next message: ošin: "Re: Reverse engineering surrogate factoring"
- Previous message: The Qurqirish Dragon: "Re: Minimum distance from a point to a surface defined by constraints"
- 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 ]
