VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, [4], 5, 6, 7, 8 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 19:34:21 05/07/07 Mon
Author: Matheus Corrêa
Subject: Re: Peer editing from Stela to Matheus Corrêa
In reply to: Stela Spinola 's message, "Peer editing from Stela to Matheus Corrêa" on 05:23:06 05/07/07 Mon

Hi Stela,

Thanks for your comments.

I didn't write about classical cognitivism because it wasn't the point of the text--it is titled "The Scientific Method", after all. I only mentioned my last essay to introduce the topic.

I thought that my point that myths aren't knowledge was well-supported. I'm going to explain what I meant here, and if you think that my text isn't clear about this, do let me know. First of all, I should say that I find myths wonderful; I do love them for the stories they are, and I wasn't in any way trying to discount them. But their explanations about the state of things are still false. This is so became myths are explanatory, not predictive; and, as I explained, predictive power is crucial for us to diffentiate between what is true and false.

Also, I did consider giving examples related to cognitive science, but they would be too long-winded, so I decided against it. The main point here was to explain the scientific method; furthermore, I had already gone into detail about cognitivism in my other essay.

But yeah, thanks for your help!

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]
[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.