Aurino,

The epistemological problem that Dick wishes to address does exist. I am not discounting the philosophical problem that entails for example:

1. What is an effective explanation?

2. What does it mean for something to cause something else?

3. What is 'true' about a theory of science?

etc...

The problem I'm having aren't the questions it is the presumption by Dick that these problems have been effectively addressed when they haven't. Anti-realism, in whatever form, doesn't solve problems it simply displaces the problems elsewhere.

Warm regards, Harv

• Glad to hear that - aurino - July 26, 2001 - 20:58 UTC
  • Some points of departure - harvey1 - July 26, 2001 - 22:04 UTC
    • Some thoughts - aurino - July 27, 2001 - 13:40 UTC
      • I think you understand a lot more than most. - doctordick - July 27, 2001 - 17:49 UTC
        • Since I've been mentioned - harvey1 - July 27, 2001 - 19:29 UTC
          • Kuhn reference (correction) - harvey1 - July 27, 2001 - 19:31 UTC
          • (i.Assuming if the right experiment were done! - doctordick - July 29, 2001 - 15:01 UTC
  • Don't get me wrong - harvey1 - July 27, 2001 - 14:52 UTC
    • Don't worry about that - aurino - July 27, 2001 - 16:15 UTC
      • The meaning of life - stormcrow - July 27, 2001 - 16:36 UTC
      • How about curiosity? - doctordick - July 27, 2001 - 18:54 UTC
        • When you read - harvey1 - July 27, 2001 - 21:22 UTC
          • When I read... - stormcrow - July 28, 2001 - 00:54 UTC
    • FAPP - harvey1 - July 27, 2001 - 17:42 UTC
• I consider myself an absolute realist! - doctordick - July 27, 2001 - 14:22 UTC
  • Hello - harvey1 - July 27, 2001 - 15:31 UTC