Re: .9 repeating

On Mar 19, 6:27 am, "*** T. Winter" <***.Win...@xxxxxx> wrote:
In article <cc548531-c421-4637-b8fc-592aeb53b...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> lwal...@xxxxxxxxx writes:
...
 > 3. Can I associate this theory with MR, without being
 > academically dishonest?
 > 4. Can I associate this theory with AP, without being
 > academically dishonest?
Both would be dishonest because that would suggest that they were meaning
that all along.

So now what? I want to be able to discuss the theories
of AP and MR, but as long as they aren't rigorous, no
one will want to discuss them. But if I try to make
them rigorous, that's academically dishonest.

Don't fix AP and MR? Not rigorous enough.
Fix AP and MR? Academically dishonest.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't!

There must be some way to discuss these alternate
theories without being either non-rigorous or dishonest!
.

Quantcast