Home   |   Browse       NEW: (hypothetically starring) VIC REEVES as LUKE SKYWALKER .. in "Waiting for Godot, the hollywood version".

Therefore, things must be learned only to be unlearned again or, more likely, to be corrected. (Feynman)   Share:  
Thrust of argument: Feynman tells us 'In fact, everything we know is only some kind of approximation, because we know that we do not know all the laws as yet.' Direction of resistance / implied resistance: Using a grid (the website software you are reading these words on) helps me take that approach at many levels, more and more.


bae (at half strength)
AT APPROX 552.50 capita (at half strength)
AT APPROX 465.90 centrica AT APPROX 144.80 g4s AT APPROX 252.60 gkn AT APPROX 300.80 glencore AT APPROX 349.00 m&s AT APPROX 310.60 morrison AT APPROX 211.80 rollsroyce (at half strength)
AT APPROX 832.50 rsa (at half strength)
AT APPROX 597.00



Enter your DOMAIN NAME to
collect this point:


Removal of resistance: It drills it into me, all the more over time. Unification: Indeed Noam Chomsky and Idries Shah both also drum in this self-same idea which is at the root of what Richard Feynman has taught.

An introduction to Syntactic Structures says of Chomsky that he is 'always willing to formulate proposals in accurate detail in order to see where the weaknesses lie, then reformulate, sometimes in a radical fashion, moving much snow on the mountainside.'
Rebut this point   Support this point   Edit this point

(TVhobo's estimated size of readership since 2013, mainly in the UK and USA, with Germany in third place:
over 200,000 readers across approximately 200 cities/towns


Copy/paste point into your work:

Type: Open statement

1 versions:

1. Server time: 17:22:42 on 9/9/2017

Related points:


Youtube video: Me reading that quote from the introduction to Syntactic Structures.



previous point on the grid   |   next point on the grid


Click here to read about Shams Pirani, the editor and chief author on this grid - note, if you can actually prove anything written above wrong, I would gladly, if the proof is sufficient, correct what I've written and what I think - if I could, however, prove your attempted proof wrong, then I would accordingly say so and maintain whatever point of view is completely based on fact and proof.