home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
- Path: sparky!uunet!mcsun!sun4nl!relay.philips.nl!prle!hpas5!schiller
- From: schiller@prl.philips.nl (schiller c)
- Subject: Re: Philosophy before science ? (was : Seman
- Message-ID: <schiller.726394556@hpas5>
- Sender: news@prl.philips.nl (USENET News System)
- Organization: Philips Research Laboratories Eindhoven, Netherlands
- References: <102936.2005.14241@kcbbs.gen.nz> <C0FssI.DtF@unx.sas.com>
- Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 08:15:56 GMT
- Lines: 32
-
- sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill) writes:
-
- [ discussion deleted ]
-
- >While in general I agree with your response to the simplistic and
- >uncritical view expressed above, the view you express here is also
- >a bit simplistic. For example,
-
- [ ...]
-
- >--
- >Gary H. Merrill [Principal Systems Developer, C Compiler Development]
- >SAS Institute Inc. / SAS Campus Dr. / Cary, NC 27513 / (919) 677-8000
- >sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com ... !mcnc!sas!sasghm
-
-
- To dismiss an argument because it is "simplistic" is a
- typical example of, well, ... arrgogance !
- A statement is either true or false, but "simplistic" is not
- evidence for false.
-
- If in physics one had always dismissed "simplistic" arguments,
- one would have got nowhere. On the contrary, the textbooks are
- full of "simplistic" solutions to difficult problems.
- (Ether ? No ether ! Energy non-conservation ? No, a neutrino !
- Sky is dark at night ? Universe is finite ! etc.)
-
- Cheers
-
- Christoph Schiller
-
-
-