Origin of Articles

[Angrboda]

You and I are done. You piss and moan that I don't devote hours reading your previous argument and then you have the audacity to use a cheap and lame excuse to ignore my own. I have at my side here the reader, "Philosophy of Science," M. Curd and J.A. Cuver, ed., which has a nice 18 page essay on the Duhem-Quine Thesis, part of a 100+ page section on Duhem-Quine and underdetermination of theory which I could scan and post, but we both know what the result of that would be. You'd simply find some other lame evasion to avoid answering the question. This isn't my first exposure to epistemological holism and while Wikipedia may be faulted at times for errant scholarship, I know from my own study of the issue that there was nothing wrong or improper in the Wikipedia summation that I posted. But then, far be at from you to actually make a substantive response and make a valid criticism of the account of epistemological holism given. If you actually had a problem with the substance of my summary, I have to wonder why you didn't use it? Because you don't have any substantive criticism, because if you had, that would have killed my argument more dead than complaining about the material being from Wikipedia. Which means that you don't have a substantive response. Thanks for the confession.

Which I guess demonstrates that you're unwilling to account for yourself and use any cheap whine to evade your responsibilities.

Enjoy your silly evasions and fallacy ridden dancing. I've got better things to do with my time.



Oh, as long as I'm still here, I'll contribute one parting shot for the benefit of those who wish to continue. You are conflating the assumption of methodological naturalism, which is a procedural limitation on the type of explanations that the scientific method can uncover, with metaphysical naturalism, which is the assumption that only natural, material causes exist.