Posted by Reilly Atkinson on July 20, 1999 at 18:52:00:

In Reply to: Re: Misconceptions about "social constructions". posted by P. Richard Hansen on July 20, 1999 at 17:02:01:

Sir

Got the point, missed the point -- who knows? My motives in my note were not terribly grand. Before I can find whatever point you claim to be making, I need to understand your text. My questions were designed to help my understanding.

Perhaps one or two of my questions might be a bit arch, and designed to be intellectual traps. However, I cannot understand why giving answers to most of my questions is so onerous. You make claims, which presumably have a basis in fact. If you cannot defend your assertions about relativity or chaos theory for example, then it might be judicious not to make such assertions.

Since the notion of a society containing a law is, at best, obscure, it seems reasonable to ask for clarification. What does your phrase mean?

I'll be happy to come to grips with your point, to the extent that I'm able, if you will clarify your text.

And, indeed, if I can find it, I'll try to read your cited book.

Thanks

Reilly Atkinson

---

Follow Ups:

• That book Lauri Gröhn 03:25:29 7/21/99 (1)
  • Re: That book P. Richard Hansen 07:20:47 7/21/99 (0)
• Re: Misconceptions about "social constructions". P. Richard Hansen 20:17:20 7/20/99 (4)
  • Re: Misconceptions about "social constructions". Reilly Atkinson 19:19:14 7/21/99 (3)
    • Re: Misconceptions about "social constructions". P. Richard Hansen 21:29:50 7/21/99 (2)
      • Re: Misconceptions about "social constructions". Reilly Atkinson 13:07:21 7/22/99 (0)
      • Philosophy of sosiology is not philosophy of... Lauri Grohn 03:11:58 7/22/99 (0)

---

Click Here to Post Follow Up in New Forums

    Knowledge Management Think Tank (New)

  

 Subject: 

Message: