Newsgroups: alt.fan.cecil-adams,alt.usage.english,sci.lang
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!hood.cc.rochester.edu!news.acsu.buffalo.edu!dsinc!spool.mu.edu!newspump.sol.net!howland.erols.net!netcom.com!jqb
From: jqb@netcom.com (Jim Balter)
Subject: Re: WARNING  Popperesque Paradigm shift approaches
Message-ID: <jqbE2BB3L.n1u@netcom.com>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
References: <misraelE27EIG.G1v@netcom.com> <58kcoh$o9j@lastactionhero.rs.itd.umich.edu> <32ADF69E.25E1@sn.no> <58mvu7$77p@riscsm.scripps.edu>
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 17:54:56 GMT
Lines: 19
Sender: jqb@netcom.netcom.com

In article <58mvu7$77p@riscsm.scripps.edu>,
Mark Israel <misrael@scripps.edu> wrote:
>In article <32ADF69E.25E1@sn.no>, shughes@sn.no ("Simon R. Hughes") writes:
>
>> Would an alternative interpretation of Mark Israel's prediction be this:
>> 
>> **************************************************
>> * WARNING  Popperesque Paradigm shift approaches *
>> **************************************************
>> ?
>
>   Something like that.  But I'm afraid I'm not up on my Popper; 
>someone would have to enlighten me how one of Karl Popper's paradigm
>shifts differs from one of Thomas Kuhn's.

They differ by being misattributed to Popper rather than Kuhn.
-- 
<J Q B>

