Subject:
|
Re: Why not Both?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 23 Jan 2001 19:39:46 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
425 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Jon Kozan writes:
> I believe that when I present scientific evidence I'm arguing scientifically.
> If I don't, then I'm not. That simple.
>
> Anything else is philosphical. (by my definition)
> This is why I'm trying so hard to get to starting definitions in the other
> threads.
Scientific argument isn't simply about presenting evidence; it also
entails analyzing that evidence in accordance with the scientific method.
This is a failure of that article you cited (in addition it its
idiosyncratic spelling and grammar).
In addition, have you presented your own starting definitions? I ask this
at face value, because you may have, and I may have missed it.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Why not Both?
|
| I see from the below that we have a difference on debate styles and definitions Ok. I believe that when I present scientific evidence I'm arguing scientifically. If I don't, then I'm not. That simple. Anything else is philosphical. (by my (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
88 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
