Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (69047)	12/2/2002 6:05:07 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 82486

Significance is a logical judgement. You keep tossing out the same principle in different words as though it were an absolute, without any argument or proof. This isn't up to your usual standard of discussion. What would Jacob Klein say of this level of argument? Nothing kind, I can, having had him for freshman seminar, assure you. Unsupported assertions are useless, he used to say in his wonderful, soft voice and accent. Stars and planets are both celestial bodies, but they have significant differences, chief of which is that stars are naturally occurring nuclear reactors, and planets are solid or semi- solid bodies that revolve around them So what? Did that matter to Ptolemy? All that mattered to him was that the planets wandered and were more difficult to analyze by epicycles. Until there were telescopes, planets outside our solar system didn't exist, so any differences between them could not have been significant to anybody before about 1600, which is roughly when Lippershay reportedly applied for a patent on the first telescope. Do you contend that the difference between stars and planets outside our solar system was significant to Aristotle even though he had no knowledge and could have no knowledge of such planets? Is that your agument?