Astronomy Discussion Forums | |
| Forums: |
Atm ·
Astrophotography ·
Blackholes ·
Blackholes2 ·
CCD ·
Celestron ·
Domes ·
Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem |
|
|
|
|
||||
|
|
||||||
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.
|
| Additional Information |
|---|
 |
| About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy |
|
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2024 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 |