Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
From: robert j. kolker (nowhere_at_nowhere.net)
Date: 03/17/05
- Next message: aeo6: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Previous message: aeo6: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- In reply to: Daryl McCullough: "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"
- Reply: Lester Zick: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Reply: Albert Wagner: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 12:34:01 -0500
Daryl McCullough wrote:
>
> It's really a totalitarian mindset, not free-thinking.
They use an operational definition. It goes "If I (the crack point)
cannot understand something, it makes (or ought to make) no sense to
anyone else". It is the elevation of ignorance and stupidity to a virtue.
The interesting thing is that mathematics which was conceived of very
abstractly and with no physical or practical application in mind, has
been drafted into the service of physics, and other sciences with good
and useful results. For example, without the concept of probability
(invented initially to calculate odds in card games) there would be no
quantum theory as we know it. Without Riemannian geometry which was
conceived to see how far Gauss' notions of intrinsic geometrical
properties could be carried, there would be no General Theory of
Relativity and no GPS. Without boolean algebra which was an
algebrization of Aristotle's logic we would be hard put to design
complicated computer components. And so on and so on. Anything no
forbidden by inconsistency is permitted.
Bob Kolker
- Next message: aeo6: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Previous message: aeo6: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- In reply to: Daryl McCullough: "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"
- Reply: Lester Zick: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Reply: Albert Wagner: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|