[lit-ideas] Re: Back to Popper (and further back to Hume)

  • From: Robert Paul <rpaul@xxxxxxxx>
  • To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 21:30:44 -0800

Omar wrote:

*In other words, Donal is asking us to defend
inductive probability (regardless of whether or not we
endorse it otherwise) on the basis of clearly
insufficient inductive evidence. Something like
challenging one to fight a box match on condition that
his hands are tied on his back.

That's pretty much how I see it.

However, in the lines from my post Omar quotes it appears that I wrote 'for the life of me, I see now argument.' This might be misconstrued as someone's trying
to say, 'I now see argument,' as if the words were coming from a lovable but
primitive Disney character; I meant though, that I saw _no_ argument.

Robert Paul,
messing about with words, under threatening skies,
somewhere south of Reed College.

To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html

Other related posts: