Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
From: Neil W Rickert (rickert+nn_at_cs.niu.edu)
Date: 02/27/05
- Next message: Wolf Kirchmeir: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Previous message: Arthur J. O'Dwyer: "Re: [XPOST] A unique number for every "person" - can it be done?"
- In reply to: Albert: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Next in thread: Wolf Kirchmeir: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 22:45:25 +0000 (UTC)
Albert <albertwagner@cox.net> writes:
>Neil W Rickert wrote:
>> That is to say, you are deliberatly miscommunicating.
>How peculiar. That is *exactly* the charge that I and other
>non-mathematicians bring against mathematicians. In that common
>usage essentially means what most people mean by a word, it would
>seem 'uncommon' is the appropriate word for mathematical usage.
Any technical field introduces its own technical vocabulary, often
reusing common words in that vocabulary. The mathematicians have
been repeatedly explaining the technical terms they have been using.
It's okay if the not-mathematicians don't understand the
terminology. The problem is when the non-mathematicians insist on
criticizing the mathematicians for their proper use of technical
terminology.
- Next message: Wolf Kirchmeir: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Previous message: Arthur J. O'Dwyer: "Re: [XPOST] A unique number for every "person" - can it be done?"
- In reply to: Albert: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Next in thread: Wolf Kirchmeir: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
