Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!mcvax!ukc!eagle!rjf
From: rjf@eagle.ukc.ac.uk (Robin Faichney)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Re: Do philosophers need defending?
Message-ID: <3238@eagle.ukc.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 29-Jul-87 12:49:46 EDT
Article-I.D.: eagle.3238
Posted: Wed Jul 29 12:49:46 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 1-Aug-87 08:40:17 EDT
References: <3219@eagle.ukc.ac.uk> <825@klipper.cs.vu.nl> <3227@eagle.ukc.ac.uk> <3341@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu>
Reply-To: rjf@ukc.ac.uk (Robin Faichney)
Distribution: world
Organization: Computing Lab, University of Kent at Canterbury, UK.
Lines: 21

Summary:

Expires:

Sender:

Followup-To:


:>In article <825@klipper.cs.vu.nl> biep@cs.vu.nl (J. A. "Biep" Durieux) writes:
:>
:>>Now I would wish more people dug into the philosophical basis
:>>of that methodology, so that they would become a little less confident in
:>>yelling "it's scientifically proven!".

:In article <3227@eagle.ukc.ac.uk> rjf@ukc.ac.uk (Robin Faichney) (me) writes:
:
:>Does this mean 'significantly less confident in a significant number of
:>cases'? If so, it seems to me obviously false. If not, why say it?

In article <3341@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> myers@tybalt.caltech.edu.UUCP (Bob Myers) writes:

:Obviously false? Not to me. Seems quite likely to me, at least for
:non-scientists. Among scientists is a different story.

Absolutely. I meant scientists. I though Biep meant scientists. Not so sure
now. How about it, Biep?

Robin
PS Maybe we should go privat/sm;i-ed cox