Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science

From: Albert (albertwagner_at_cox.net)
Date: 02/07/05 

Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2005 11:47:49 -0600

robert j. kolker wrote:
>
>
> Albert wrote:
>
>> Natural language is only 'confusing and circumlocuitous' to those with
>> poor language skills. It is further confounded by the fact that
>> mathematics redefines common words in a very narrow and misleading
>> ways, ignoring the semantic burden that those words carry for others.
>
>
> Mathematics uses terminology in a restricted and rather well defined
> way.

I think that is exactly what I said earlier, Bob.

> Natural or every day language is very useful where lack of
> precision is an advantage.

Precision in what, Bob? Quantity or quality? Mathematics
creates and perpetuates its own difficulties in natural language
by its insistence on private, limited and misleading definitions
of natural language's words.

> Mathematical usage would not be very good for
> composing poetry or writing moving speeches.

Indeed.

> It is not very good for expressing sentiments.

Indeed.

> Natural language is well adapated to expressing
> the ill formed, the indefinite, or the deliberately fuzzy.

No, you are wrong. The great poets know exactly how to
communicate precisely. Thank you for making my point for me.

> If you want
> to write a love poem use natural language. If you want to prove theorems
> use the precise lexicon of mathematics.

And what do you use when you hope to communicate the results of
your mathematical gyrations to a non-mathematician?

Just say "*** 'em" when it is mathematicians themselves who have
poisoned the very language in which they could have communicated? 

-- 
"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"
Loading