--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "PaliGap" <compost1uk@...> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@> > wrote: > ... > > > Yes anecdotal evidence is compelling to those uneducated > > to its psycological sway over its epistemological validity. > > I suspect I'm inadvertently channeling Card here, but what > is the difference between the above and the following: > > "Yes anecdotal evidence is compelling to those uneducated > to its psychological sway over its validity." > > What does "epistemological" add?
Use of redundant words, that is dual words, is well, clear duality. And is thus non-duality trap #47. No, wait Eva green already has 40-60. So it is trap 67. > > "Epistemology" is the theory of knowledge. "Justificationism" > i.e. the idea that 'we should believe in only those things > for which we have good supporting evidence' is just one > school or theory of Epistemology. > > "Epistemological validity" seems to me to be close to an > oxymoron in that Epistemology is the theory of validity, > not a standard for validity. > > I am being picky. But isn't that the oxygen on which > words, concepts, discussions thrive? In the same way > as a guitarist will be ***picky*** about keeping her > guitar in tune?... >
