Subject: Re: Shades of Neil Postman!!!!
From: David Wiles (rprtcard@aug.com)
Date: Wed 05 Apr 2000 - 03:49:42 MEST
Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2000 21:49:42 -0400 From: David Wiles <rprtcard@aug.com> Subject: Re: Shades of Neil Postman!!!!
List address to send message to everyone: ifets-discuss@LISTSERV.READADP.COM
Details of current discussion: http://ifets.ieee.org/discussions/discuss.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally! the two roads to agreement about Descartes have been specified.
No counting angels on the head of the pin this time. Professor Betz says
step one is...
4th edition" by Howard
>Ozman and Samuel Craver, published by Merrill, on page 7, who refer to the
>term in question as "methodical doubt."
Once this is embellished, let's see if we can distinguish what it would
mean if an empiricist used it in discussion of 'method' and a religious
protestant might mean if describing 'methodism.'
I really guess its up to ania whether this 'prodding from plodding' is
worth the time and electronic exchange energy at clarification. Can we
really peel back the Descartes banana and see something or is it all
>my point of reference to
>clear myself of the charge of inexactitude?
David Wiles
At 09:46 AM 4/4/2000 -0500, you wrote:
>List address to send message to everyone: ifets-discuss@LISTSERV.READADP.COM
>Details of current discussion: http://ifets.ieee.org/discussions/discuss.html
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>(Relating to the quote at the bottom of this message)
>
> "something akin to Descartes' "methodical doubt."
>wasn't it methodological doubt?
>Fellow Trudger" David Wiles
>
>
>Dear Fellow Trudger and other IFETS colleagues!!!!
>
>The term "methodical" or "methodological doubt" are both translations from
>Descartes, so the nuance of meaning related to this terminological
>distinction depends upon the interpretation of the translator. I can site
>the text, "Philosophical Foundations of Education, 4th edition" by Howard
>Ozman and Samuel Craver, published by Merrill, on page 7, who refer to the
>term in question as "methodical doubt."
>
>Further, I am sure that both terms could be defended by different
>interlocutors, however, and have therefore supplied my point of reference to
>clear myself of the charge of inexactitude.
>
>Regards,
>Muhammad B.
/snip/
---------------------------------------------------------
Forum website: http://ifets.ieee.org/
Forum's contact person: kinshuk@massey.ac.nz
Info on Join/Leave List: http://ifets.ieee.org/maillist.html
---------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2a24 : Wed 05 Apr 2000 - 04:28:55 MEST