Re: Skolem Again
- From: Chris Menzel <cmenzel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 6 Oct 2005 21:24:09 GMT
On 6 Oct 2005 12:41:32 -0700, William of Ockham
<d3uckner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> said:
> Chris Menzel wrote:
>> On 5 Oct 2005 01:50:03 -0700, david petry
>> <david_lawrence_petry@xxxxxxxxx> said:
>> > Chris Menzel wrote:
>> >> It is really unbecoming for someone as smart as you to be arguing in
>> >> the classic mold of a crackpot.
>> >
>> > Hmmm, what's the difference between a crackpot and a skeptic?
>>
>> At a minimum, competence in the technical subject matter he or she
>> purports to criticize.
>
> I have a minimum of competence in the subject of philosophy.
More than a minimum, in fact.
> And, as I am arguing, it is a philosophical problem.
But it's a philosophical problem having to do with a *technical* result
in mathematical logic. The ontological status of photons is a
philosophical problem as well; would you expect to be taken seriously if
you were to take up that problem with no technical competence in quantum
mechanics, and were not even able to provide any more than a layperson's
understanding of a wave? If so, well, I marvel at your hubris. If not,
what's the difference in this case?
.
- References:
- Skolem Again
- From: William of Ockham
- Re: Skolem Again
- From: Chris Menzel
- Re: Skolem Again
- From: david petry
- Re: Skolem Again
- From: Chris Menzel
- Re: Skolem Again
- From: William of Ockham
- Skolem Again
- Prev by Date: Re: Skolem Again
- Next by Date: Re: Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem
- Previous by thread: Re: Skolem Again
- Next by thread: Re: Skolem Again
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|