--- cornel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > This is why I emphasised the importance of getting > behind commonsense and the need to debunk it as good > thinkers and scientists have done historically. I > was genuinly hoping for a good discussion with you > when I asked for examples of what you meant by "true > knowledge." I was very intrigued by such a term and > more than politely asked you about it. Indeed I > was keen to learn something new. Unfortunately, all > I got was a put-down. > Mario replies: > When people whimper and claim that they have been "put down", in order to gain sympathy in a discussion, my response is, "If the shoe fits, wear it. If it doesn't, then you have nothing to worry about." > What kind of intelligent discussion can anyone have with someone who says "It would be helpful to figure out what you mean by 'true knowledge.' That concept was largely rejected when religious knowledge was questioned with the rise of modernity. Further, one would even be pressed very hard to refer to anything in science as 'true knowledge'." as you did in: http://shire.symonds.net/pipermail/goanet/2006-June/043615.html
> Let me repeat the last part in case anyone missed it, "Further, one would even be pressed very hard to refer to anything in science as 'true knowledge.'" > If you continue your comical, even embarrassing, opinion that "...one would be pressed very hard to refer to anything in science as 'true knowledge'." even after giving you several rudimentary examples, then those of us who exist in the real world will have to leave you to discuss the real number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin with your scientific friend Gabe, who has apparently attended remedial Thursday science classes :-)) > BTW, let us know how many angels you come up with :-)) > _____________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. Goanet mailing list ([email protected])
