<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel rdf:about="http://blogmarks.net/api/user/ravi/marks/tag/PhilScience">
<title>Public marks from user ravi with tag PhilScience</title>
<description>Public marks from user ravi with tag PhilScience</description>
<link>http://blogmarks.net/user/ravi/marks/tag/PhilScience</link>
<items><rdf:Seq><rdf:li resource="http://blogmarks.net/api/user/ravi/mark/774784"/>
<rdf:li resource="http://blogmarks.net/api/user/ravi/mark/287237"/>
</rdf:Seq></items>
</channel>
<item rdf:about="http://blogmarks.net/api/user/ravi/mark/774784">
<title>Against Method: Paul Feyerabend</title>
<link>http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0860916464/sr=8-1/qid=1155677678/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-6196311-3538425?ie=UTF8</link>
<description>Using a detailed examination of the history of science, Feyerabend demonstrates the shallowness of the idea of a single well-defined method in scientific activity and knowledge. To Feyerabend, the lack of one (and only one) method is a good thing since a proliferation of techniques increases our store of knowledge.
</description>
<dc:date>2006-08-15T21:35:11Z</dc:date>
<dc:author>ravi</dc:author>
<dc:subject>books, PhilScience</dc:subject>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div class="mark">
<a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0860916464/sr=8-1/qid=1155677678/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-6196311-3538425?ie=UTF8"><img border="0" src="http://blogmarks.net/screenshots/2006/08/17/98d29fdc7210c9b3951a231b6858840e.png" alt="" /></a>
<div class="xfolkentry">
<h4><a class="taggedlink" href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0860916464/sr=8-1/qid=1155677678/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-6196311-3538425?ie=UTF8">Against Method: Paul Feyerabend</a></h4>
 
by <a href="http://blogmarks.net/user/ravi">ravi</a> 
<p class="description">Using a detailed examination of the history of science, Feyerabend demonstrates the shallowness of the idea of a single well-defined method in scientific activity and knowledge. To Feyerabend, the lack of one (and only one) method is a good thing since a proliferation of techniques increases our store of knowledge.
</p>
<p class="tags">
<a rel="tag" class="tag public_tag" href="http://blogmarks.net/marks/tag/books">books</a>
<a rel="tag" class="tag public_tag" href="http://blogmarks.net/marks/tag/PhilScience">PhilScience</a>
</p>
<div class="action-bar">
<a href="http://blogmarks.net/my/marks,new?id=774784">Copy</a> | 
<a href="http://blogmarks.net/link/1024418">React (0)</a></div>
</div>
</div>
]]></content:encoded>
</item> <item rdf:about="http://blogmarks.net/api/user/ravi/mark/287237">
<title>Leo Cory -- The Origins of Eternal Truth in Modern Mathematics</title>
<link>http://www.math.rutgers.edu/~zeilberg/mamarim/akherim/corry.txt</link>
<description></description>
<dc:date>2005-12-20T01:00:23Z</dc:date>
<dc:author>ravi</dc:author>
<dc:subject>math, PhilScience</dc:subject>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div class="mark">
<a href="http://www.math.rutgers.edu/~zeilberg/mamarim/akherim/corry.txt"><img border="0" src="http://blogmarks.net/screenshots/404.php" alt="" /></a>
<div class="xfolkentry">
<h4><a class="taggedlink" href="http://www.math.rutgers.edu/~zeilberg/mamarim/akherim/corry.txt">Leo Cory -- The Origins of Eternal Truth in Modern Mathematics</a></h4>
 
by <a href="http://blogmarks.net/user/ravi">ravi</a> 
<p class="tags">
<a rel="tag" class="tag public_tag" href="http://blogmarks.net/marks/tag/math">math</a>
<a rel="tag" class="tag public_tag" href="http://blogmarks.net/marks/tag/PhilScience">PhilScience</a>
</p>
<div class="action-bar">
<a href="http://blogmarks.net/my/marks,new?id=287237">Copy</a> | 
<a href="http://blogmarks.net/link/436677">React (0)</a></div>
</div>
</div>
]]></content:encoded>
</item> </rdf:RDF>