extro91

Let's take the right average of the record..YOUR FLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESH!

definitely shit*

HOW MUCH WE LOVE IT! The rest of them definitely drives me crazy but this fucking record! THIS RECORD! It's way too awesome, damn it! One of the greatest EBM records of all time! In its genre, this album would be four and a half. Now I'm reading the review it definitely deserves. The 5 is basically for having reviewed them.

Damn! THE SCIENTISTS SU DEBEEEEISEEEEEEEER!

I didn't know this album.. well, what can I say.. THANK YOU! :D

Listen to yourself! Not bad at all!! If, as you said, there are other albums of theirs that are much cooler than this one, I'll get them. I completely agree with the judgment. Of course, B.D.D. is too beautiful.

Oh, I almost forgot...

TWIN EARTH: Putnam hypothesizes the case of a Twin Earth that is identical to ours except for the chemical composition of water: an astronaut who observed the water on Twin Earth would comfortably call it water until he analyzed it, discovering that its composition is not H2O, but XYZ; at this point, he would assert that on Twin Earth "water" does not have the same meaning as it does on our Earth, since there it means (i.e., refers to) XYZ and here, for us, H2O. However, if we consider not the astronaut but a hypothetical earthly visitor who managed to reach Twin Earth, for example in the eighteenth century (or anyway prior to the development of modern chemistry), then the earthly person and the inhabitant of Twin Earth would continue to use the same term, referring (unbeknownst to them) to two different substances, but - and this is essential for Putnam - possessing the same notions about water: that it is colorless, odorless, tasteless, that it quenches thirst, etc. This demonstrates that it is not the speakers’ knowledge that determines reference, meaning that the extension of the term is not exclusively a function of cognitive aspects or, in other words, that meanings are not in the head. In fact, the earthly person and the alien from Twin Earth refer to two different things with the term "water" while being in the same psychological (cognitive) condition. The meaning is then correlated to the object, in our case water, by virtue of a social operation, that is, a causal relationship that exists between the speakers and the actual referent of the term. The extension is determined by the nature of the objects to which the term refers, regardless of the knowledge possessed by the speakers, so that on our Earth "water" will refer exactly to H2O and on Twin Earth to XYZ.

Dream Pop and similar genres have never really appealed to me at all. Because of that, I’ve always kept my distance from bands that might even just touch on the genre. The Lowlife, although I know them by name, perfectly fit into the category of bands I’ve unjustly snubbed. However, when it comes to Joy Division and Echo and the Bunnymen, I’m forced to put them on the list... do you know if the name comes from the New Order album?

Reliability is not a sufficient condition for justification: Bonjour's counterexample.
1. John has a thermometer in his head that alerts him to changes in temperature in his head.
2. John does not know that he has a thermometer in his head.
3. John's beliefs are true but unjustifiable (from an intuitive standpoint).
The problem here lies in the fact that the reliability of a cognitive system can at most be a necessary condition, but not sufficient to guarantee the justification of S in P. Indeed, from an intuitive perspective, the fact that John produces true beliefs from his internal thermometer does not seem to be a sufficient condition for John to consider his belief justified. Once again, this brings us to the point raised by the internist of justification: a subject S is justified in believing that P when he has accessible reasons to believe it. In John's example, even though he has a reliable cognitive system, the mere fact that he is unaware of it means that he cannot be guaranteed justification for his beliefs. John should probably simply conclude that he has a lot of epistemic luck in assuming beliefs about temperature variation, but he could not conclude that he is justified in his beliefs.