Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
From: aeo6 (aeo6_at_cornell.edu)
Date: 03/15/05
- Next message: fishfry: "Re: Most of you are a bunch of conceited and ignorant fools!"
- Previous message: aeo6: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- In reply to: robert j. kolker: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Next in thread: Newsgroup: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Reply: Newsgroup: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Reply: robert j. kolker: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 15:47:41 -0500
robert j. kolker said:
>
>
> Lester Zick wrote:
> >
> > Universal truth, Bob. You know, those little facts that are facts and
> > are not subject to empirical invalidation because they can't be false.
>
> Once again I ask you for
>
> 1. A definition of Universal Truth.
>
> 2. An example of Universal Truth.
>
> I keep asking, but you do not respond.
>
> Bob Kolker
>
>
1. Consistency
2. Science
-- Smiles, Tony
- Next message: fishfry: "Re: Most of you are a bunch of conceited and ignorant fools!"
- Previous message: aeo6: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- In reply to: robert j. kolker: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Next in thread: Newsgroup: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Reply: Newsgroup: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Reply: robert j. kolker: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
