Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science

From: aeo6 (aeo6_at_cornell.edu)
Date: 03/17/05 

Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 14:24:05 -0500

robert j. kolker said:
>
>
> 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
>
>
Not forbidden by inconsistency? Isn't that what I have been saying all along,
that the conclusions drawn from cardinality are not consistent with conclusions
drawn from other methods? Hasn't that been admitted repeatedly? Is this
consistent? 

-- 
Smiles,
Tony

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
    ... > forbidden by inconsistency is permitted. ... > Bob Kolker ... that the conclusions drawn from cardinality are not consistent with conclusions ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
    ... > forbidden by inconsistency is permitted. ... > Bob Kolker ... that the conclusions drawn from cardinality are not consistent with conclusions ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
    ... >> implies that one has crazy ideas, but most of the usenet cranks ... > Bob Kolker ... conclusions drawn from them. ... cardinality measures are wrong and that the method needs refinement. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
    ... >> implies that one has crazy ideas, but most of the usenet cranks ... > Bob Kolker ... conclusions drawn from them. ... cardinality measures are wrong and that the method needs refinement. ...
    (sci.cognitive)
  • Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
    ... >> implies that one has crazy ideas, but most of the usenet cranks ... > Bob Kolker ... conclusions drawn from them. ... cardinality measures are wrong and that the method needs refinement. ...
    (sci.physics)