[lit-ideas] Re: When you're hot you're hot, when you're not ...

  • From: Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2009 15:59:35 +0000 (GMT)

This is for RP and for Walter and everyone: I had said

> But who can adequately defend this reductive/deterministic
> view? 

P spent his life's work on this issue [inter alia]. (Some might say W did.) P's 
approach was to examine the fundamental nature of "explanation" in general, and 
analyse in science and non-science. 

W's view was to bother not to offer a truly adequate explanation even in 
"science" of "explanation", but to suggest that we can get by by simply talking 
commonsence and what we derive as an acceptable level of "explanation" should 
suffice. (Why look furthr).

D
nap  



------------------------------------------------------------------
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:

  1. Home
  2. lit-ideas
  3. Archive
  4. 09-2009