Harv,

I think you have failed to comprehend what I said and likewise what I am doing in my thesis. First of all, I fully understand what your definition of realist constitutes. Let me point out a subtle aspect of what you have said in your response.

Harv: >>> As an illustration, let's say that I was a realist about the substance of the wooden desk that my arms are resting on. In ancient times past, I might have thought that this wood is reduceable to 'earth'. And, maybe I thought the sun was reduceable to 'fire'. I am being a realist about the nature of substances.>Now, we all know that a naive realist view of hard wood is mistaken. Physicists armed with calculators have shown that hard wood is actually composed of molecules, and that this state of affairs is reduceable to atoms, and that is reduceable to sub-atomic particles, and that's reduceable to quarks and leptons, etc.

• I still (still) think you are being anti-realist - harvey1 - July 30, 2001 - 23:50 UTC
  • And you are wrong! - doctordick - July 31, 2001 - 15:59 UTC
    • You mean to say that you think I'm incorrect? - harvey1 - July 31, 2001 - 17:32 UTC
      • Let's say you do not express my ideas accurately! - doctordick - July 31, 2001 - 20:01 UTC
        • LOL - harvey1 - July 31, 2001 - 21:06 UTC
          • Are you having fun guessing? - doctordick - August 1, 2001 - 16:01 UTC
            • This is what happens when we stopped the quizzes - harvey1 - August 1, 2001 - 17:29 UTC