Sure I do, that's what I said, isn't it. As I said, I like to start with facts, which consequently are the facts within the respective debate.
You reject my use of the word 'the' in the facts, as if that meant that I spoke on behalf of all people. Well, I never claimed to have some exclusive insight as to what THE facts were, instead I pick facts for the very reason that they are widely acknowledged as such. Note that, by saying "WE don't start with THE facts", you DO appear to claim to represent "US", something you seem to regard as something that was wrong. Feel free to start with nonsense, or whatever you like. Facts are typically quoted, with the source included, so that anyone can check them. Facts are not meant to be debated, it's instead the argument that's meant to be debated. However, if you feel you have better facts, feel free to present them. I still believe you have nothing to say, so you won't know what facts to look for, because you've got no argument. Cheers! Sam Carana On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 3:37 PM, adrf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > FACTS ARE NOT REAL BUT PRODUCTS OF A THEORY. READ T.S. Kuhn. iS this a group > into epistemology > or what? Why don't you subject your terms to examination? NOBODY calls matter > real, it's called > the material HYPO-thesis and unproven at that. It's a complete > misinterpretation of what > Descartes actually wrote. "WE" don't start with THE facts, YOU DO. ... --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
