Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
From: Lester Zick (lesterDELzick_at_worldnet.att.net)
Date: 02/02/05
- Next message: r.e.s.: "Re: My claim on Omega's defn"
- Previous message: mail_at_jacquelinepassey.com: "Re: Advanced math classes through distance learning?"
- In reply to: tadchem: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Next in thread: aeo6: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 22:15:35 GMT
On 2 Feb 2005 11:34:46 -0800, "tadchem" <thomas.davidson@dla.mil> in
comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>I read what you wrote.
>
>I even tried to address the questions you posed (albeit most of them
>seemed to be rhetorical questions).
>
>You act as if I deliberately offended you personally by not agreeing
>with you at the outset, by not being persuaded by your efforts at
>rhetoric, and by suggesting ideas that were beyond the scope of those
>you presented. For this you dismiss me and wrongly accuse me of not
>reading your post.
>
>You have a choice what to do with your life and whatever intellectual
>talents you posess. If you choose to preemptively disregard any ideas
>that are at variance with your own, then you prevent yourself from ever
>learning anything new. It is your choice, and you must live with the
>consequences of you own choices.
I can't tell to whom this is addressed, but I'll assume it's me. What
caught my eye to begin with was that your remarks weren't responsive
to the substance of the original post, which was not directed at
mathematics per se but only peripherally at the empirical character of
mathematical and other kinds of axioms.
Your remarks which were directed at what I wrote were simply offhand
rejections of what I had written based on contemporary views of
empirical science and mathematics. I didn't write the post in order to
summarize established views of empirical science and mathematics. I
wrote it to offer revisionist interpretations consistent with a
uniform view of reality in general and science and mathematics in the
context of such a mechanical view of reality in general.
I don't need to have contemporary views explained to me. By and large
I know what they are. All you did was apprize me of contemporary
thinking without explaining why that thinking was any more valid or
true than the views I offered. This is what I refer to as lecturing ex
cathedra.
But the final straw was the amazing comment you offered that what I
needed was a perception of science. That was unbelievably obtuse since
the entire article was clearly labeled the science of science. I know
you and several of the others who replied from other threads on other
groups, but I had never seen that kind of culpable misinterpretation
that led me to regard you as some kind of nut just indescriminately
posting received wisdom and revealed truth to the unwashed heathen.
I regret that you and others took offense at my interpretation of your
remarks. But if you and others are incapable of original thinking on
such subjects as the foundations of science and mathematics or if you
just regard anyone offering revisionist views simply as heretics then
I don't know what to say to you. I have a finite life expectancy that
isn't getting any longer and I don't have time to waste explaining the
obvious to people who simply consider me ignorant and refuse to
examine the rationale for what I'm saying for no better reason than
they prefer the inside of an intellectual establishment to the
outside. I've had perfectly civil discussions on the usenet with
people who disagree with me. It's just amazing the kind of arrogance
and arbitrary lack of insight the academic scholastic mentality can
generate. That's what I regret most of all.
Regards - Lester
- Next message: r.e.s.: "Re: My claim on Omega's defn"
- Previous message: mail_at_jacquelinepassey.com: "Re: Advanced math classes through distance learning?"
- In reply to: tadchem: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Next in thread: aeo6: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
