[Phys-L] Re: Piaget & Dewey: Down for the Count? - PART 1

[Jack Uretsky <jlu@HEP.ANL.GOV>]

Very good!  I do languaqe by successive approximations.
Here's better Deutsch, carefully done solely from memory:
Ein Gegenbespiel hat das Wert eines Tausends Bespielens.

I quarrel with the "only".  Slick salesmen also make general statements.


On Mon, 12 Sep 2005, Bernard Cleyet wrote:

> Only a foolish S scientist, etc. would make a general statement.  Was
> Piaget a fool?
>
> bc, still not happy w/ the Deutsch, but too lazy to research it.
>
> p.s. RC wrote better than I.
>
> Jack Uretsky wrote:
>
> > Amended Deutsch:
> > Ein Gegenbespiel hat der Wert ein Tausend Bespielen.
> >
> > Yes in SS, psyc, etc., etc., etc.  A general statement need only be
> > slaughtered once.  If there are exceptions, then the general statement is
> > False.
> >                                 Regards,
> >                                         Jack
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sat, 10 Sep 2005, Bernard Cleyet wrote:
> >
> >
> > > maybe in Physics -- not necessarily in SS, Psychology , nutrition, etc.
> > >  too many variables.  the counter example may be very specific while
> > > other parts of the theory may be still valid.
> > >
> > > bc, who wonders if the ist should be substituted for the is.
> > >
> > > Jack Uretsky wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi all-
> > > >        In reponse to:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > "[Metzenberg's (undated #2)] is an interesting article, but I'm not
> > > > > sure that I see why one piece of contrary research should throw out
> > > > > all of Piaget's theory.  Scientific method would dictate that we
>
> cut

--
"Trust me.  I have a lot of experience at this."
                General Custer's unremembered message to his men,
                just before leading them into the Little Big Horn Valley
_______________________________________________
Phys-L mailing list
Phys-L@electron.physics.buffalo.edu
https://www.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l