Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Wed, 17 Nov 2010 18:34:18 +0100 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
My favourite Reagan line was "Ketchup is a vegetable." We always used to say
Reagan was, too.
Just wondering what the Swedes would say about your take on socialism, and
at the same time wondering how you could do historical archaeology while
holding such an historically false belief?
I've been doing a lot of work on the history & epistemology of
archaeological documentation, and some of the discipline's ties to
uniformitarianism, and one of my favourite lines is something Woolley wrote
something in the early 1960s about going from the "known to the unknown" in
making interpretations and inferences. So my question is: if you start out
with a demonstrably false premise "socialism fails, etc." (i.e. what is
"known"), then how can your inferences or interpretations about the past
(the "unknown") have any validity?
-----Original Message-----
"SOCIALISM FAILS WHEN IT RUNS OUT OF OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY"
"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the
government fears the people, there is liberty." - Thomas Jefferson
If we ever forget that we're one nation under God, then we will be a nation
gone under" - Ronald Reagan
|
|
|