Talk:John Earman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

	Philosophy Portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.
Additional information: Related task forces (major fields): Philosophy of science Philosophers

I would have liked to see some of the arguments Earman used against David Hume's 'Of Miracles.'

[edit] Removal of vanity notice

I 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.