I wrote, referring to the short _Scientific American_ article: > > This is much too abstract. If people want to talk about the inadequacy > > of NCE (as they should!), they must present an alternative. It's not > > enough to trash a theory, even if one's criticisms are totally valid, > > if the alternative is the null set, intellectual anarchy, crude > > empiricism, scholasticism, or religion.
Sandwichman wrote: > Present an alternative: Sydney J. Chapman's 1909 theory of the hours of labour but did he present an article that presents an alternative to current NCE concerning the issues that the Sci-Am article refers to? > If anyone is > interested, I can send it to you in a MS Word file. I'd like to see it. -- Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
