Article View: sci.philosophy.tech
Article #314Re: Science vs Philosophy of
From: Barry Merriman
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 04:26
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 04:26
15 lines
989 bytes
989 bytes
In article <7390@skye.ed.ac.uk> jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) writes: > Part of the reason is that there's often something in the original > that was distorted in earlier attempts to extract the concepts themselves. If the concept is so particular that its defined as what is present in the priginal work, I doubt there is any concept there at all. Simply vagues ideas that only had meaning within the authors own way of thinking of it. -- Barry Merriman UCLA Dept. of Math UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<1992Aug30.042629.19346@math.ucla.edu>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!news.claremont.edu!ucivax!ucla-cs!ucla-ma!newsReferences:
<7390@skye.ed.ac.uk>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!news.claremont.edu!ucivax!ucla-cs!ucla-ma!news From: barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman) Subject: Re: Science vs Philosophy of Message-ID: <1992Aug30.042629.19346@math.ucla.edu> Sender: news@math.ucla.edu Organization: UCLA, Mathematics Department References: <7390@skye.ed.ac.uk> Date: Sun, 30 Aug 92 04:26:29 GMT Lines: 17