I am having repetitions of the following two errors, especially frequent with the first, and am not sure what the cause of the problem is... I would greatly appreciate any help. Thanks, Greg ******First Problem: From: L-Soft list server at Metanexus (1.8e) [mailto:[log in to unmask]] Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 6:23 PM To: Laurenson, Edwin C. Subject: IRASRN: error report from AOL.COM The enclosed message, found in the IRASRN mailbox and shown under the spool ID 0455 in the system log, has been identified as a possible delivery error notice for the following reason: "Sender:", "From:" or "Reply-To:" field pointing to the list has been found in mail body. *****Here's the attached message: Subj:[IRASRN] More on pragmatism /realism Date:1/13/04 8:16:03 PM Pacific Standard Time From:[log in to unmask] Reply-to:[log in to unmask] To:[log in to unmask] Sent from the Internet We are all pragmatists at some level and we are all realists at some level. I think of my realism as a type of functional realism -- I adopt it to get through the day and converse with my friends but I don't claim any correspondence for it. After it is established that the earth revolves around the sun we adopt this view for realist reasons -- because of the way the solar system is configured and not merely because it is useful or expedient. If one were alive when Copernicus first made his claims (while there was still doubt about the relevant facts) one might elect to stay with the Ptolemaic system because you had a lot of money invested in apparatus or because it was more consistent with scripture, etc. Galileo did not follow this route. When he became convinced the church was mistaken he adopted Copernicus' view for realist reasons, i.e., because he had no doubt about the facts and elected to have his belief correspond to reality. (I hope this history is not too whiggish) I may be the only person on this list who objects to the use of first person plural pronouns such as "we," "our" and "us" with no obvious referent but I simply don't know whom is being talked about and what the writer's justification is for claiming o speak for them. This is not a stylistic problem but a problem of relying an ad hominem generalization to strengthen one's argument. It seems to me that pragmatism doesn't have much in the way of a theory of truth. It seems to be an eclectic, perspectival methodology lending itself to instrumentalism - that Charley seems to have adopted. I totally agree. The theory of truth is not very elaborate. This may be true for some versions of realism but I doubt it is the case for scientific realism. I see the latter settling for taking our sensory apparatus as trustworthy enough to make PHYSICAL claims likely and not much concerned with metaphysical assertions. Can anyone help us here? I understand scientific realism in the same in way but I think some scientists in their zeal or ignorance try to claim more. shalom dear friends bb ***************************Another Problem: From: System Administrator To: Ursula Goodenough Subject: Undeliverable: Reflections on a trip to India (double posting to irasRN and IRAS net) Sent: 1/18/2004 12:02 AM Importance: Normal Your message did not reach some or all of the intended recipients. To: [log in to unmask] ' Cc: [log in to unmask] Subject: Reflections on a trip to India (double posting to irasRN and IRAS net) Sent: 1/18/2004 12:01:41 AM The following recipient(s) could not be reached: [log in to unmask] ' on 1/18/2004 12:02 AM One or more arguments in the recipient was detected as being invalid The MTS-ID of the original message is: c=US;a= ;p=Washington Unive;l=BIOEXCHANGE-040118060141Z-2391 MSEXCH:IMS:Washington University:BIOSERVER:BIOLOGY2 3599 (000B09AA) Malformed Address