On Wed, 08 Feb 2006 00:04:57 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Andy Hall wrote:
On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 16:48:38 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Andy Hall wrote:

Moreover, Popper's work has been extended, modified in detail and even
partly refuted by at least two of his former students, Lakatos and
Feyerabend. One argument that is applied is that had the criteria
been as strict in the past based on what was known them, would
progress have been made?

Well now you have looked up Popper on a website, and found as much as
you can to refute his positions, try actually understanding what he was
getting at.


Misconception again.

I haven't taken a position on what he said at all,

I never said you had


I'm glad that we're clear on that point. I don't want another
situation where material or a position is incorrectly attributed to
me.




but have merely
highlighted that it is not universally considered by the scientific
community to be the be all and end all.

Nothing is considered the be all and end all.

I'm glad that we're clear on that as well.





I prefer to keep an open mind rather than taking a religious view.



Bandar log.


No it isn't.



--

..andy