Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science

From: Richard Herring (junk_at_[127.0.0.1)
Date: 03/22/05 

Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 10:11:03 +0000

In message <423f1f88.53805449@netnews.att.net>, Lester Zick
<lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net> writes
>On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 18:06:41 +0000, Richard Herring <junk@[127.0.0.1]>
>in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>
>>In message <423f01fd.49865555@netnews.att.net>, Lester Zick
>><lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net> writes
>>>On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 16:55:44 +0000, Richard Herring <junk@[127.0.0.1]>
>>>in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>>>
>>>>In message <1yC%d.14949$Fy.3498@okepread04>, Albert Wagner
>>>><albertwagner@cox.net> writes
>>>>>Richard Herring wrote:
>>>>>> In message <UHB%d.14946$Fy.12597@okepread04>, Albert Wagner
>>>>>><albertwagner@cox.net> writes
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Giuseppe Bilotta wrote:
>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yeah, gee, it's not like I actually expected an answer. Trolls are
>>>>>>>>trolls, after all.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Quit crossposting to philosophy NGs, and prove thereby that *you*
>>>>>>>are not the troll.
>>>>>> Isn't he just following up to Zick's choice of crossposted
>>>>>>newsgroups?
>>>>>>
>>>>>The conversation has wandered far afield of Zick's topic.
>>>>
>>>>I defer to your superior knowledge. Most people here haven't a clue what
>>>>his topic was in the first place, still less what it has mutated into.
>>>
>>>Most people in your group have difficulties reading nonnumeric text.
>>
>>"My" group?
>
>The group of people who have difficulties reading nonumeric text.

Whereas there's another set of those who have difficulties typing it.
>
>>>>> Since when does anyone on sci.math feel obligated to go with anyone
>>>>>else's opinion as to who should be crossposted?
>>>>
>>>>It's usually done as a courtesy to the audience, since one doesn't know
>>>>which groups they are following. To be sure, in this particular case it
>>>>would probably be a greater courtesy to stop posting at all.
>>>
>>>And you're the most courteous of all.
>>>
>>>>>Or is that willingness to go with the flow just endemic to
>>>>>mathematikers who can't think for themselves?
>>>>
>>>>I wouldn't know. What's a "mathematiker"?
>>>
>>>You for starters.
>>
>>Hmm. Definition by example. Isn't that a little, er, inductive?
>
>But very effective.

For a solipsist. 

-- 
Richard Herring

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
    ... In message, Lester Zick ... Whereas there's another set of those who have difficulties typing it. ... >>Hmm. ... Richard Herring ...
    (sci.cognitive)
  • Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
    ... In message, Lester Zick ... Whereas there's another set of those who have difficulties typing it. ... >>Hmm. ... Richard Herring ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
    ... In message, Lester Zick ... >Except you don't to respond to my objection to the term algebraic ... "algebraic" in a way that's different from its everyday meaning? ... Richard Herring ...
    (sci.cognitive)
  • Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
    ... In message, Lester Zick ... >Except you don't to respond to my objection to the term algebraic ... "algebraic" in a way that's different from its everyday meaning? ... Richard Herring ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
    ... In message, Lester Zick ... >Except you don't to respond to my objection to the term algebraic ... "algebraic" in a way that's different from its everyday meaning? ... Richard Herring ...
    (sci.math)
Quantcast