by Plato.
Carrol
- Original Message -
From: Carrol Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, October 13, 2002 7:55 AM
Subject: [PEN-L:31316] Re: Re: What is science
Charles Jannuzi wrote:
The science report
is that sad sick pretense of an exercise in c
From: Carrol Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED]
... Both (Carl Sceptical Inquirer) are pitching religous
woo-woo and can't tell us much about the actual world.
Carrol
Woo-woo it may be, but it is of a decidedly irreligious nature. Know then
thyself, presume not God to scan, what? The proper study of
Hanly...
- Original Message -
From: Carrol Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, October 13, 2002 7:55 AM
Subject: [PEN-L:31316] Re: Re: What is science
Charles Jannuzi wrote:
The science report
is that sad sick pretense of an exercise in c/v
building
Title: RE: [PEN-L:31275] Re: RE: what is science?
In reference to my comment on the normal role of intuition (e.g.,
Einstein)
in science, Ian writes:
What's the difference between intuition and guess?
and explains:
It may matter somewhat if we are to discern not only the cognitive
The errors of SCIENCE will never be
corrected by the kind of critique Carl offers because what Carl is
attacking doesn't exist
Carrol
What a relief. Would that were true for everything I attack.
Carl
_
Send and receive
Title: RE: [PEN-L:31261] Re: RE: what is science?
said I:
BTW, I still want to know what the alternative is to scientific
(logical-empirical) thinking.
Carl:
I'd say intuition, but that's only a hunch :)
ha!
of course, contrary to scientistic/positivistic propaganda, intuition
Devine, James wrote:
of course, contrary to scientistic/positivistic propaganda, intuition is
part of science. What was Einstein, if not intuitive? (I'm told that his
math wasn't very good.) Scientists use their intuition all the time. But
then the products of intution that can't be validated
RE: [PEN-L:31261] Re: RE: what is science?
- Original Message -
From: Devine, James
said I:
BTW, I still want to know what the alternative is to scientific
(logical-empirical) thinking.
Carl:
I'd say intuition, but that's only a hunch :)
ha!
of course, contrary to scientistic
If what "can't be validated logically or empirically" falls by the
wayside, how/why do we have economics?
In confronting mainstream micro purveyors, anything empirical put before
their noses is dismissed as "anecdotal." An intuition that
is validated by unfolding events is "anecdotal." Meanwhile
Ian Murray wrote:
What's the difference between intuition and guess? What's the difference
between intuition and analysis?
At least according to Susanne Langer analysis is dependent on intuition.
Her example:
Suppose someone admits that All men are mortal and that Socrates is a
Man, but
Eugene Coyle wrote:
If what can't be validated logically or empirically falls by the
wayside, how/why do we have economics?
In confronting mainstream micro purveyors, anything empirical put
before their noses is dismissed as anecdotal. An intuition that is
validated by unfolding
Title: RE: [PEN-L:31272] Re: RE: Re: RE: what is science?
I wrote:
of course, contrary to scientistic/positivistic propaganda, intuition is
part of science. What was Einstein, if not intuitive? (I'm told that his
math wasn't very good.) Scientists use their intuition all the time
12 matches
Mail list logo
