[meteorite-list] Irons DON'T form Fusion Crust's - yes they DO
From: Matthias Bärmann <majbaermann_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2007 23:11:12 +0100 Message-ID: <001201c732a8$be776a20$0200a8c0_at_ibmtp23> Hello Dave, list, trying to google "phenomenological" one can get ca. 5.860.000 results. The Center for Advanced Research in Phenomenology gives a summary in describing what they call "Seven Widely Accepted Features of the Phenomenological Approach". For my argumentation I'd refer especially to no.3 and no. 6: 3. Phenomenologists tend to justify cognition (and some also evaluation and action) with reference to what Edmund Husserl called Evidenz, which is awareness of a matter itself as disclosed in the most clear, distinct, and adequate way for something of its kind 6. Phenomenologists tend to recognize the role of description in universal, a priori, or "eidetic" terms as prior to explanation by means of causes, purposes, or grounds; http://www.phenomenologycenter.org/phenom.htm#2 "Phenomenological" a Bush word, Mr. Bush thinking and acting consequently in a phenomenological manner - would have been great, would have saved the world some problems. Matthias ----- Original Message ----- From: Dave Freeman mjwy To: Matthias B?rmann Cc: cynapse at charter.net ; meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com Sent: Sunday, January 07, 2007 9:56 PM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Irons DON'T form Fusion Crust's - yes they DO phenomenologicalIt this really a word? Sounds like a George Bush word. DF Matthias B?rmann wrote: I agree. But using an expression (also a scientific one) in a phenomenological manner we should take care to avoid a contradiction (or even tensions) between the phenomenological and the scientific dimension. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Darren Garrison" <cynapse at charter.net> To: "Matthias B?rmann" <majbaermann at web.de> Cc: <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com> Sent: Sunday, January 07, 2007 8:26 PM Subject: Re: Re: [meteorite-list] Irons DON'T form Fusion Crust's - yes they DO On Sun, 7 Jan 2007 20:17:25 +0100, you wrote: But it doesn't hit the point regarding meteorites. "Glassy" evokes the impression of something shiny, very smooth, mirror-like. But as we all now But the "laymen" use of the term isn't the scientific one. "Glassy" means something that cooled quickly enough that it didn't have time to crystalize and is instead, on the atomic level, an amorphous mess. ______________________________________________ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://six.pairlist.net/pipermail/meteorite-list/attachments/20070107/3086a928/attachment.html> Received on Sun 07 Jan 2007 05:11:12 PM PST |
StumbleUpon del.icio.us Yahoo MyWeb |