Talk:John Earman
Latest comment: 18 years ago by Intangir in topic Removal of vanity notice
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Untitled
editI would have liked to see some of the arguments Earman used against David Hume's 'Of Miracles.'
Removal of vanity notice
editI removed the vanity notice. I came to the page because one of my professors gave me a list of good current philosophers of science, and Earman was first. Incidently, my professor had previously been at UPitt... In any case there are like 25,000 google hits for "john earman" -wikipedia. Intangir 05:28, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
- As other evidence of notability there is an article in the sept. 2002 Scientific American about Earman's hole argument Intangir 05:38, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
++This man is a genius. Humble, funny, dedicated to his students, and extraordinarily well read.