Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
From: Lester Zick (lesterDELzick_at_worldnet.att.net)
Date: 03/01/05
- Next message: boyandshark: "lower boundary?"
- Previous message: sherifffruitfly_at_gmail.com: "Re: What's so good about exanding vectors on an *orthogonal* basis?"
- In reply to: aeo6: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Next in thread: Lester Zick: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2005 19:49:00 GMT
On Tue, 1 Mar 2005 13:32:13 -0500, Tony Orlow (aeo6)
<aeo6@cornell.edu> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>
>> And kids compare things through differences before they can count.
>> Matching isn't possible without differences between things matched.
>> The first things kids see in the context of reading is books then
>> pages then paragraphs then perhaps sentences then words then letters.
>> Bob's thesis seems to be that kids begin with letters or elements
>> before differences. And matching isn't the same thing as mapping.
>>
>> Regards - Lester
>>
>Sure, people learn about things through their qualitative differences
>before they learn about arithmetic differences. Counting things depends
>on the definition of "things". This kind of goes back to the fact that
>assertions in logical arguments ultimately rest on non-logically derived
>truths.
Empiricism leads to atomized elements of knowledge, Bob's little dots
etc. because if offers no way to know the truth of things in relation
to one another, only falsity through observational contradiction.
Regards - Lester
- Next message: boyandshark: "lower boundary?"
- Previous message: sherifffruitfly_at_gmail.com: "Re: What's so good about exanding vectors on an *orthogonal* basis?"
- In reply to: aeo6: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Next in thread: Lester Zick: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
