Subject:
|
Re: Critical Thinking
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 3 Dec 2000 07:38:21 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
481 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > > serious snippage
> He said every "meaningful" (paraphrasing) true claim is falsifiable and then >proceeded to show why non falsifiable claims don't help us in our >understanding.
<just going off on a tangent here> Why should we privilege rationalism as a
source of understanding? And if we should, should it be the only type of
insight that informs our understanding?
--DaveL
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Critical Thinking
|
| (...) He didn't say that, exactly. He said every "meaningful" (paraphrasing) true claim is falsifiable and then proceeded to show why non falsifiable claims don't help us in our understanding. (...) Good point but while you're thinking about that, (...) (24 years ago, 1-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
198 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
