Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
From: Lester Zick (lesterDELzick_at_worldnet.att.net)
Date: 02/14/05
- Next message: robert j. kolker: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Previous message: Lester Zick: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- In reply to: Albert: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Next in thread: Neil W Rickert: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 23:28:22 GMT
On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 16:02:06 -0600, Albert <albertwagner@cox.net> in
comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>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.
Thanks, Albert. It's been a long day.
Regards - Lester
- Next message: robert j. kolker: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Previous message: Lester Zick: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- In reply to: Albert: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Next in thread: Neil W Rickert: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|