Debate : 8945


Off-Topic / Debate / 8945	8944 \| 8946

Subject:	Re: Why not Both?
Newsgroups:	lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date:	Tue, 23 Jan 2001 20:27:54 GMT
Viewed:	378 times

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes: > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Jon Kozan writes: > > This is why I'm trying so hard to get to starting definitions in the other > > threads. > > 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. Yes: http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=8876 and revised again in: http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=8915 -Jon

Message has 1 Reply:

		Re: Why not Both?
(...) later this evening or tomorrow, because I have to consult a text at home. Dave! (23 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Message is in Reply To:

		Re: Why not Both?
(...) 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). (...) (23 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

Custom Search