Re: The Intellectual Origin of Positivism
From: Lester Zick (lesterDELzick_at_worldnet.att.net)
Date: 07/14/04
- Next message: David Longley: "Re: death of the mind."
- Previous message: Lester Zick: "Re: The Intellectual Origin of Positivism"
- In reply to: soapless: "Re: The Intellectual Origin of Positivism"
- Next in thread: Wolf Kirchmeir: "Re: The Intellectual Origin of Positivism"
- Reply: Wolf Kirchmeir: "Re: The Intellectual Origin of Positivism"
- Reply: soapless: "Re: The Intellectual Origin of Positivism"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2004 15:57:08 GMT
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 08:32:44 -0400, "soapless"
<bgordon@thunderstar.net> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>
>"Lester Zick" <lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
>news:40f3ff85.61196987@netnews.att.net...
>> On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 08:55:44 -0400, "zerkanX" <zerkanX@nospam.net> in
>> comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>>
>> >On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 19:04:23 +0000, Lester Zick wrote:
>> >
>> >> There is nothing philosophy has
>> >> to say with respect to science science can't learn to say for itself.
>
>Does it not occur to your thick wordiness that science is but an expression of
>"philosophy" a term you throw about hoping to wrest meaning from it.
It occurs to me that sicence is but an expression of science and not
philosophy.
>To divide, say, is a philosophy, then algorithms are constructed that perform
>division and are then often described in qualitative terms, such as "greedy" or slow.
Well, sport, division is somewhat more than a philosophy of devision.
>Why don't yu petition the dictionary\thesaurus and have the term removed it it
>troubles you so? I mean if you don't like the definition you cling to.......
Which term is that? Science or philosophy? Knowing the latter doesn't
mean you can do the former. But knowing the latter means you think you
can do the former.
>You know little math. Tthe golden mean, phi was arrived at and discussed
>philosophicly for ages, most, if not all math is pursued this way. pi and e
>are worth a glance, i'll do e for you, idiot, as you will never stop publishing
>derision long enough to know what you are saying.
Yes, by all means, wax ecstatic and explain to us your philosophy of
pi and e.
>unity plus fractions raised to the inverse power of said fractions- this
>describes what has happened to wealth since euler gave e a thorough going over,
Well, Euler certainly made his share of mistakes.
>compound interest etc.. Paraphrased, it means your rulers are evil , even to the
>fraction your species became by allowing them. To the power of derision would
>apply in your case. An odd value system of logic has maybe as it's central premise.
>communication depends on it. All you are doing by attacking quality over quantity
>is admitting you suspect that math logic has it's roots in, and is used in conjunction
>with duality, a two value system of true or false that allows no maybe.
I certainly agree that philosophy wins in terms of quantity - maybe.
On the other hand if, as you say, there is no maybe, then philosophy
definitely wins in terms of quantity and science wins in terms of
quality. Either way I strongly suspect you lose.
>You aren't going to read up, so i may as well tell you that quarks defied
>description until a three value system was used. This is also way too big a
>leap for you, but if we were held to the philosophy that math has very neatly
>ordered, much of what you and others say and do would be inadmissable, not
>to mention rigorously de-constructed.
Whatever.
>In short, you won't be able to reason you way out of your snit until you adopt
>a less disgusting diet. pythagoras avoided beans and meat, so did newton and
>einstein, having read pythagoras. High protein, dead, cooked food drugs the
>mind, but in your case you couldn't be any more repetitive or agressive, given
>your failing mental health, i'll bet physical, too.
Ah, the dietary perspective on science.
>Can't you treat your hemmorhoids instead of being cranky on the usenet, spouting
> what you think makes you sound intelligent. Do some math. If you really knew how to
>claissfy, you would regret all those posts where you were told to shut up and continued
>attacking others over your inability to sit quietly with your own smell.
Don't tell me. Your one of David's imagined genies who secretly audit
the usenet. This is rich. Oh, this is rich indeed.
>In economics, normative - what happened, positive - what to do about it. You
>fail even to address your heading that invokes positivism, probablty yo be expected
>form a pessimist. i hope children aren't exposed to you.
I addressed the origin of positivism in the first paragraph of the
original post.But even if you can't read, you can still do philosophy.
>cheers and regards, and go buy some more plastic that won't get recycled, creep.
Yes, yes, I shall certainly do so.
Regards - Lester
- Next message: David Longley: "Re: death of the mind."
- Previous message: Lester Zick: "Re: The Intellectual Origin of Positivism"
- In reply to: soapless: "Re: The Intellectual Origin of Positivism"
- Next in thread: Wolf Kirchmeir: "Re: The Intellectual Origin of Positivism"
- Reply: Wolf Kirchmeir: "Re: The Intellectual Origin of Positivism"
- Reply: soapless: "Re: The Intellectual Origin of Positivism"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
