It looks like between us we did manage to stall the discussion, which was not my intention, and I know it wasn't yours.
So as to try to kick-start it again, keeping both the philosophical debate and the concern for concrete examples in mind, I wondered if any of you could elaborate on the things you have been saying vis., "énoncé" by way of the following:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/sep/21/2?gusrc=rss&feed=11
It seems to me like a good place to put some empirical flesh on the philosophical bones of what has been discussed: man as a species, as something that has evolved from a primitive form to a more advanced form, the disagreement between scientists which is not a disagreement about epistemic foundations, but adherence to those foundations, etc.
One could easily write an archaeology of the hobbit...
regards - k
____________________________________________________________
FREE 3D EARTH SCREENSAVER - Watch the Earth right on your desktop!
Check it out at http://www.inbox.com/earth
So as to try to kick-start it again, keeping both the philosophical debate and the concern for concrete examples in mind, I wondered if any of you could elaborate on the things you have been saying vis., "énoncé" by way of the following:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/sep/21/2?gusrc=rss&feed=11
It seems to me like a good place to put some empirical flesh on the philosophical bones of what has been discussed: man as a species, as something that has evolved from a primitive form to a more advanced form, the disagreement between scientists which is not a disagreement about epistemic foundations, but adherence to those foundations, etc.
One could easily write an archaeology of the hobbit...
regards - k
____________________________________________________________
FREE 3D EARTH SCREENSAVER - Watch the Earth right on your desktop!
Check it out at http://www.inbox.com/earth