So you've read the book? (Reply #2) - Democratic Underground

In the discussion thread: Atheist Q&A [View all]

Fri Feb 10, 2012, 12:54 PM

Silent3 (14,304 posts)

And/or is your response to my answers, not the book's answers?

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

17 replies	Author	Time	Post
Atheist Q&A [View all]	Silent3	Feb 2012	OP
Mostly agree. I think he short-sold humanistic morality a bit	dmallind	Feb 2012	#1
So you've read the book?	Silent3	Feb 2012	#2
Ah - missed the distinction - thought QA was with author. Sorry. nt	dmallind	Feb 2012	#5
As for my own answers...	Silent3	Feb 2012	#7
there is no rational basis for an idea like Occam's Razor	provis99	Feb 2012	#8
So	tama	Feb 2012	#9
But it is very good for deterrmining likely hypotheses to investigate	dmallind	Feb 2012	#10
it is of zero value when determining likely hypotheses.	provis99	Feb 2012	#12
In medicine, there is a similar construct.	cbayer	Feb 2012	#13
A) Crap b) why is either ontology or a philosopjy construct a question for scientists?	dmallind	Feb 2012	#14
Hogwash	skepticscott	Feb 2012	#15
Its NATURE!	elleng	Feb 2012	#3
You Are Searching For Certain Answers	1ProudAtheist	Feb 2012	#4
I can't get to the review that you're referencing.	Jim__	Feb 2012	#6
massimo's post	notinavat	Feb 2012	#16
Surprising that Rosenberg claims to be on board with all that; then claims the macro world is ...	Jim__	Feb 2012	#17
Pigliucci, Rosenberg etc	notinavat	Feb 2012	#11

Edit History

Please login to view edit histories.