On Oct 26, 12:20 pm, Acme Prognostics <LFine...@ZAPTHISgmail.com> wrote: > "Tronscend" <tronf...@frizurf.no> wrote: > >"Acme Prognostics" <LFine...@ZAPTHISgmail.com> skrev i melding ... > Given your track record, I induce that to be reliable without > question, ...
Without question, my ass! Absurd brown nosing!
> > >As I see the case, Candidate A pursues a "logicality" that <snip> > >I snook in the LoC as the "logical engine" that gives force to > >entailment, and I would maintain that it is operative in > >induction, too; this, however, requires anothyer step: I'd say > >that induction is based on identification of entities ("Gasoline > >...."), and that these entities have properties (" ... is <snip> > > Pardon my snippage only for length, but all your points about > types and properties are well taken. They lead in various > directions,
Yes, the more directions, the more the fog and that is what is called philosophy in this usenet group. Fog! Comic dust to give it a bit of variety and lighten its oppressiveness.