RE: virus: RFC - Definitions: Truth, Acceptance, Belief, Trust and Faith
From: Blunderov (squooker@mweb.co.za)
Date: Sun Mar 03 2002 - 22:52:27 MST
- Next message: L' Ermit: "RE: virus: RFC - Definitions: Truth, Acceptance, Belief, Trust and Faith"
- Previous message: L' Ermit: "RE: virus: RFC - Definitions: Truth, Acceptance, Belief, Trust and Faith"
- In reply to: L' Ermit: "virus: RFC - Definitions: Truth, Acceptance, Belief, Trust and Faith"
- Next in thread: ben: "Re: virus: RFC - Definitions: Truth, Acceptance, Belief, Trust and Faith"
- Reply: ben: "Re: virus: RFC - Definitions: Truth, Acceptance, Belief, Trust and Faith"
- Messages sorted by:
[ date ]
[ thread ]
[ subject ]
[ author ]
[ attachment ]
L'Ermit wrote:
<snip>
a "truth", to have
any measure of rational support, must by necessity, always be provisional,
incomplete and falsifiable, in other words, there must always, at least
hypothetically, exist some evidence which would permit that supposed truth
to be rejected.
<snap>
[Blunderov]
I wouldn't mind some help with what I perceive to be a paradox here, namely:
[I] All truths are falsifiable. [/I]
I'm sure this has all been sorted out before so if someone would be kind
enough to point me in the right direction...?
Fond regards
Blunderov
- Next message: L' Ermit: "RE: virus: RFC - Definitions: Truth, Acceptance, Belief, Trust and Faith"
- Previous message: L' Ermit: "RE: virus: RFC - Definitions: Truth, Acceptance, Belief, Trust and Faith"
- In reply to: L' Ermit: "virus: RFC - Definitions: Truth, Acceptance, Belief, Trust and Faith"
- Next in thread: ben: "Re: virus: RFC - Definitions: Truth, Acceptance, Belief, Trust and Faith"
- Reply: ben: "Re: virus: RFC - Definitions: Truth, Acceptance, Belief, Trust and Faith"
- Messages sorted by:
[ date ]
[ thread ]
[ subject ]
[ author ]
[ attachment ]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5
: Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:44 MDT