On Nov 5, 2008, at 9:31 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Russell's lesson? The fallibility of induction.
Not induction. The fallibility of seeduction. | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Michael Brady [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Re: "Certainty" AND "ART" Cheerskep
- Re: "Certainty" AND "ART" imago Asthetik
- Re: "Certainty" AND "ART" Michael Brady
- Re: "Certainty" AND "ART" GEOFF CREALOCK
- Re: "Certainty" AND "ART" armando baeza
- Re: Reification and "ART" GEOFF CREALOCK
- Re: Reification and "ART" William Conger
- Re: Reification and "ART" GEOFF CREALOCK
- Re: "Certainty" AND "ART" Cheerskep
- Re: "Certainty" AND "ART" Cheerskep
- Re: "Certainty" AND "ART" Michael Brady
- Re: "Certainty" AND "ART" GEOFF CREALOCK
- Re: "Certainty" AND "ART" William Conger
- Re: "Certainty" AND "ART&qu... GEOFF CREALOCK
- Re: "Certainty" AND "ART" Cheerskep
- Re: "Certainty" AND "ART" armando baeza
- Re: "Certainty" AND "ART" GEOFF CREALOCK
- Re: "Certainty" AND "ART" corr... armando baeza
- Re: "Certainty" AND "ART" armando baeza
- Re: "Certainty" AND "ART" Chris Miller
