> Perhaps Richard you are right. The popperian way of looking at it afirms that
> no matters how many times you establishes the correction of a theory, it
> continues not to be correct.
Briefly: a theory can be wrong but not right.
> But, utilizing other epistemological theories (linguistical, idealists,
> relativism, etc), we can reach the conclusion that there is not a unique

Damn now I have to consult a dictionary to understand...

Epistemology is the branch of philosophy that is concerned with knowledge, the sources of knowledge, the extent of knowledge, and the theories of knowledge. This is a field of philosophy that is still under debate. Some philosophers believe that the attainment of knowledge lies in sense experience, or is "a posteriori," such as seeing, hearing, touching, smelling, or tasting. This type of epistemology is also referred to as empiricism. Other philosophers believe that knowledge is innate, or "a priori." This type of epistemology is called rationalism. Another type of epistemology is pragmatism, which searches for true knowledge through the use of experiments.

popperian...the question of how to assess the strength of different kinds of inductive argument
>

---

> > Perhaps Richard you are right. ...
>
> Ah Nuts! Now I won't win the lottery! Well, I did save myself a Loonie
> (Canadian $1.00 coin) as I haven't bought the lottery ticket yet. I had this
> premonition... (must be spending too much time in Relious Thread, the
> Second)
>
> Sorry Mr. Pacioli., but your colloquialism "move the hen´s house" escapes me.

Here, in Argentina, there are hens. When you move their house, they get alboroted and begin to "scream". My post was intended to provoque somebody answers me...

---

"Raggio spezza, amista lunga"

> Epistemology is the branch of philosophy that is concerned with knowledge, the
> sources of knowledge, the extent of knowledge, and the theories of knowledge.
> This is a field of philosophy that is still under debate. Some philosophers
> believe that the attainment of knowledge lies in sense experience, or is "a
> posteriori," such as seeing, hearing, touching, smelling, or tasting. This
> type of epistemology is also referred to as empiricism. Other philosophers
> believe that knowledge is innate, or "a priori." This type of epistemology is
> called rationalism. Another type of epistemology is pragmatism, which searches
> for true knowledge through the use of experiments.
>
> popperian...the question of how to assess the strength of different kinds of
> inductive argument
> >

Epistemology is more than the philosophy of knowledge. More correctly, the philosophy that is concerned with knowledge, is "gnoseology".
My argument would be "a priori" (inside the huge world of the "apriorism"

---

"Raggio spezza, amista lunga"

> > Here, in Argentina, there are hens. When you move their house, they get
> > alboroted and begin to "scream". My post was intended to provoque
> somebody
> > answers me...
>
> Congratulations Mr. Pacioli. Your post was the first that required me to haul
> out my CEOED only to find alboroted is not an English word, but anglicised
> Spanish.
>
> excited would be the word you are looking for.

Thanks for the word, although it doesn´t mean the same that "alboroted" in Spanish.
Sorry, but I tend to forget the barbarian origin of your languaje (and it´s consequently short amount of words)

---

"Raggio spezza, amista lunga"

Yeah Yeah English got a fat dictionary but Spanish got 500 words for pussy...cc

>
> Yeah Yeah English got a fat dictionary but Spanish got 500 words for
> pussy...cc
>
It must be very confusing for you Carl.

---

Account frozen...

> I vote for fuel cells.
>
I vote for Jessica.

To Marc: YOU WISH!

Bush's Secularist Triumph

Top court brands Belgian far-right party racist

Oil prices tumble as supply fears recede

Bush Looking Anew for Alaska Oil Drilling

>>Bush's Secularist Triumph

HAHA, Hitchens has become such a parody of a right-wing sellout. He's mad that he isn't the Orwell of his generation, so he gladly takes right-wing nutter Scaife's money now.

---

Check the news, Rev. Jerry Falwell (gays caused the World Trade Center attack) is at it again. Starting a new crusade because of the changed political climate in the US. He wants a marriage amendment and to bring back inter-uterine probing with coat hangers. Haven't got a link yet.

---

Account frozen...

gee, these right-wing zealots are such a moral bunch of hypocrites; I will only give them credit for being truthful if they force Dick Cheney to drag his daughter by the hair on national TV, tie her to a post, and flay her alive!

---

> gee, these right-wing zealots are such a moral bunch of hypocrites; I will
> only give them credit for being truthful if they force Dick Cheney to drag his
> daughter by the hair on national TV, tie her to a post, and flay her alive!

But aren't you thrilled that Ashcroft resigned? C'mon, admit it. Oh . . . what was that? A little smile? There, that wasn't so bad, was it?

---

> But aren't you thrilled that Ashcroft resigned? C'mon, admit it. Oh . . .

probably just to be a Rehnquist Supreme Court replacement. And then that psycho right-wing Estrada to be appointed too. Whoopee...

---

Could somebody tell me what this discussion is actually about?

---

WARR - Wissenschaftliche Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Raketentechnik und Raumfahrt
(WARR - scientific working group for rocket technology and space travel)

> Could somebody tell me what this discussion is actually about?
>
It started with people giving their views on political issues and quickly became a place where folks could bash polititians whom they did not agree with (mostly Bush and Kerry). A hot topic has been the war in Iraq: usually discussed in terms of how badly Bush and the US have acted; and responses to those charges defending the US and Bush's actions. Very little has been said about Kerry's Vietnam war record. Since the election, it has been a place to complain about the election results (though very few conspiracy theories have surfaced). Is this what you are asking, or something more esoteric?

---

> > Could somebody tell me what this discussion is actually about?
> >
> It started with people giving their views on political issues and quickly
> became a place where folks could bash polititians whom they did not agree with
> (mostly Bush and Kerry). A hot topic has been the war in Iraq: usually
> discussed in terms of how badly Bush and the US have acted; and responses to
> those charges defending the US and Bush's actions. Very little has been said
> about Kerry's Vietnam war record. Since the election, it has been a place to
> complain about the election results (though very few conspiracy theories have
> surfaced). Is this what you are asking, or something more esoteric?

Thx, I think this will help me to get in here :).

But aren't you thrilled that Ashcroft resigned? C'mon, admit it. Oh . . . what was that? A little smile? There, that wasn't so bad, was it?
I'm ecstatic that Ascroft is going, going, gone! But I know who's gonna replace him... Hint: "Rude Ghouliani"