The fact is you don't know what I know about philosophy or science. So to
base your statement or opinion on one statement I made is rather
short-sighted, don't you think? You don't think that there's a whole realm
of what I know that you're not privy to... or likewise don't know? The fact
that I didn't express my thoughts with dictionary precision (remember words
frequently have numerous related definitions) is rather irrelevant.
The point is you should not assume to know what I've studied or not studied.
Since scientists and philosophers themselves, frequently disagree in earnest
about where the philosophical/scientific lines meet and/or cross over each
other, I think I'm in at least that good of company.
Tom C.
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Bailing out.
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 13:20:52 -0800
My statement, quoted below, was "With these statements, you demonstrate
little study of Philosophy or Science."
The statement is true, regardless of your opinions about the subject.
Godfrey
On Mar 29, 2006, at 11:08 AM, Tom C wrote:
But for you to make a blanket statement regarding "you demonstrate little
study of Philosophy or
Science" which really means "you don't know much", is rather ludicrous
based on how much we really know of each other.
I find philosophy, especially as popularly taught is all too frequently
someone else's own random mental meanderings with no connection to
objective truth.
I can come up with my own postulations just as easily and they would have
equal validity.
Too much of what is being taught as wisdom and knowledge is simply either
supposition or garbage.
Tom C.
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Bailing out.
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 10:52:26 -0800
With these statements, you demonstrate little study of Philosophy or
Science.