>CB: Perhaps it is that to change one's position immediately in response to
>someone's argument against one is rare, but is less rare in a delayed
>reaction ,over more time, not having to eat crow in front of the person one
>has been arguing with, and ,as you point to, in conjunction with new
>experience which is seen in a different light because of the heated
>argument of the past
>
>
Fair enough. I never said argument doesn't matter. It's part of experience.
It's probably necessary, by way of formulating alternatives. Experience then
teaches you which ones are live.
>>
>CB: What's nomological theory of explanation ? Must show a general pattern
>?
Yeah. For Hempel, to explain something is to derive a statement of the event or law to be explained from a univeral law and a statement of the particular circumstances. Thus:
All ravens are black This is a raven This is black
It's supposed to explain why this is black that it is a raven and all ravens are black.
Hempel's "streaking nakedmindedly" award for revealing all one is thinking
openly to others ?
>((((((((
>
Sorry to have been cryptic.
--jks
_________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp