>Despite Charles Jannuzi's rather >dismissive interjection, the >question is
no idle one, but >somehow the circulrity of the >current argument must be
broken >- I am open to suggestions - >especially from Charles seeing he >has
deemed fit to pass a hasty >judgement.
I wrote more than one interjection in this thread, but we do seem to be going around and around. I have to be honest, I don't take philosophy of science seriously anymore, and that's because in most of the fields that I have to work in, no one has any philosophical background AT ALL so it's a waste of time.
But just for the record, what's the question here? Maybe I can more than dismissively answer it.
Charles Jannuzi