Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
From: Albert (albertwagner_at_cox.net)
Date: 02/09/05
- Next message: Albert: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Previous message: Albert: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- In reply to: aeo6: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Next in thread: aeo6: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Reply: aeo6: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 19:49:05 -0600
Tony Orlow (aeo6) wrote:
> Albert said:
>
>>Wolf Kirchmeir wrote:
<snip>
>>>This is so confused about the nature and purposes of a mathematical
>>>model and its relation to the real world that it's not even wrong. Start
>>>over.
>>
>>Apparently your reading list for the well-read, does not include
>>Gregory Bateson.
>
> Is that for me or Bob?
It was aimed at Wolf in your defense.
--
"Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the
range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally
impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it."
-- George Orwell as Syme in "1984"
- Next message: Albert: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Previous message: Albert: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- In reply to: aeo6: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Next in thread: aeo6: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Reply: aeo6: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
Loading