[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 23:24:00 +0000 (GMT)

Not at my best, but

--- On Mon, 7/9/09, Robert Paul <rpaul@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Phil wrote
> 
> > What I am curious about is how the researchers, or
> Eric, might
> > understand the implications of their 'refutation' for
> the research
> > project itself.  Put differently, given the
> 'refutation', what is the
> > significance of the study, beyond being the expression
> of the opinions
> > of the authors?


Though I sense the sneer (actually it cd just be my knee "creaking") this kind 
of view reflects an understg many "v clever people" lack.

How does "refutation" work?

A. White swan.

B. Dead swan.

Conclusion?

What is refuted?

Not much: except that _even if we accept A/B are true_ most of what we know is 
whiteness, swanness and deadness exist. But none of that is refutation.

Really attack P, who addressed this stuff with far better intelligence than 
_anyone_ on this list, by addressing what he said or "get off the pot".

Or pretend you are secretly a brilliant philospher of science, or indeed you 
are above such things, and just move quietly on into having not much good to 
say about anything.


D
No shitg




------------------------------------------------------------------
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