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