🚀 go-pugleaf

On Dec 12, 4:46 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel"
<dirkvandemoor...@nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote:
> glird <gl...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
>   e97e929a-01ef-4e13-ad41-4814ba90d...@d20g2000yqh.googlegroups.com
>
> > On Dec 12, 9:05 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" wrote:
> >> Pentcho Valev wrote in message
> >> 32cb6cc0-6a27-4ec0-bc9f-d89c8446e...@e27g2000yqd.googlegroups.com
>
> >>> A couple of weeks ago I posted on PHILOS-L, a philosophy list with 4,853 subscribers, the following quotation:
> >  Peter Hayes "The Ideology of Relativity: The Case of the Clock
> > Paradox": Social Epistemology, Volume 23, Issue 1 January 2009, pages
> > 57-78.
> >  "The triumph of relativity theory represents the triumph of ideology
> > not only in the profession of physics but also in the philosophy of
> > science."
> >  Philosophers of science remained silent.>
>
> >> Most philosophers of science are failed scientists.
> >> So it looks like Pentcho Valev is a failed philosopher of
> >> science.
>
> >> Dirk Vdm
>
> >   As usual, Dirk's second sentence is unrelated to his first one. HE
> > must be a physicist, whose "logic" is always illogical at best.
> > Indeed, as a "profession", Physics is a lunatic asylum.
>
> The second sentence connected to the silence.
> As usual, Lebeau's autistic comprehension problem is showing.
>
> Having anticipated this kind of dumbness, I had changed the chronology
> in my reply on sci.logic, alt.philosophy, sc.astro and sci.math.

Proving: Chronologically challenged, ergo.

> Thanks for making the point for me.
>
> Dirk Vdm

There's a reason, a PhD in any subject, is a Doctorate in Philosophy.

Very well is, and could be, most Scientists are failures to Science.

Enjo(y)...
--
Mahipal

"me, that's I, always changes"

One and all, must have a real time searchable web site one doesn't
cite someplace...