The phrase "a kind of error" is correct and usable in written English.
It can be used to describe a specific type or category of mistake or fault in various contexts, such as technical writing, academic discussions, or everyday conversation.
Example: "The system encountered a kind of error that prevented it from processing the data correctly."
Alternatives: "a type of mistake" or "a sort of fault".
This argument frustrates neuroscientists such as Dennett and Pinker, who tend to argue that the experience of human consciousness - the "feeling of what happens" - is a kind of error or illusion, or an accidental byproduct of the brain-computer's operation.
But to cross the line and claim it's a done deal is not good science". This argument frustrates neuroscientists such as Dennett and Pinker, who tend to argue that the experience of human consciousness - the "feeling of what happens" - is a kind of error or illusion, or an accidental byproduct of the brain-computer's operation.
For many who reject religion today, what's generally viewed as evil is ultimately a kind of error, a product of ignorance and lack of understanding.
This would be to defend a kind of error theory, as defended by John Mackie (see Mackie 1977 and Joyce 2001).
(This does not, however, mean that all conceptualization is falsification; only concepts that allow of reductive analysis lead to this artificial inflation of our ontology, and thus to a kind of error).
This kind of view attributes to scientists a kind of error theory about many of their uses of the term 'random', but as yet the philosophical evidence adduced to convict scientists of this pervasive error is not compelling.
He sees that as a kind of navigational error, when Israel strayed off course.
The longitudinal wave was a kind of potential error source in the PQC measurements.
The indictment amounts to a kind of category error; detractors went looking for entertainment, and found art instead.
Russell once used this paradox to illustrate a kind of mathematical error, but it also is a paradigm that describes the novelist's predicament in fictionalizing the lives of real persons.
"Treating your dog as a person can be a kind of aesthetic error, albeit one that's becoming ever more common," writes John Homans in "What's a Dog For?" which explores the history and sociology of human-canine relationships.
