Back to Home

Astronomy Discussion Forums

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums
Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Perhaps...

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Harvey on November 2, 2002 15:43:26 UTC

The problem, as I see it, is that Dick is purporting philosophical foundationalism. It might seem like word games, but I think if you are exposed to his paper that he wants everyone with math skills to read, you will see blatant assumptions that lead him to conclude that his foundationalist notions are correct. He's looking for someone to show him an error in his math, whereas the more real problem is errors in his assumptions. This is the kind of rigmorale that one has to go through in order to show why his assumptions are faulty. It would seem to be quite easy to do this, but he fluctuates his definitions, terms, position, etc while he is in mid-stride. What we are doing here is taking his assumptions and definitions step by step. If you read his paper I think you'd see more what I'm talking about.

Warm regards, Harv

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
Google
 
Web www.astronomy.net
DayNightLine
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2018 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins