Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
From: Neil W Rickert (rickert+nn_at_cs.niu.edu)
Date: 02/17/05
- Next message: Albert: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Previous message: John Schoenfeld: "Re: How much TNT would it take to blow up Mecca?"
- 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"
- Reply: aeo6: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 22:23:09 +0000 (UTC)
lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net (Lester Zick) writes:
><rickert+nn@cs.niu.edu> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>>>>>Neil W Rickert said:
background:
>>>>>> You would also need to define "consistency of the universe".
current discussion:
>>That makes me consistent. I have not suggested that such a
>>definition is possible.
>You have suggested it must be for Tony to make statements you would
>subject to empirical falsification but not your own. That makes you
>inconsistent.
There isn't any consistency problem here.
Tony expressed an opinion. I expressed a counter opinion.
Tony says that his assertion was fact, not opinion. It's up to Tony
to provide evidence for that.
- Next message: Albert: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Previous message: John Schoenfeld: "Re: How much TNT would it take to blow up Mecca?"
- 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"
- Reply: aeo6: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
