Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
From: Wolf Kirchmeir (wwolfkir_at_sympatico.ca)
Date: 03/07/05
- Next message: robert j. kolker: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Previous message: aeo6: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- In reply to: Lester Zick: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Next in thread: Lester Zick: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Reply: Lester Zick: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2005 12:31:20 -0500
Lester Zick wrote:
> On Sun, 06 Mar 2005 18:06:10 -0500, "robert j. kolker"
> <nowhere@nowhere.net> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>
>
>>Lester Zick wrote:
>>
>>>So what else in the magesterium of science and mathematics is a
>>>metaphor? Or is it only those things mathematikers find themselves
>>>embarrassed to explain in literal terms? Is transcendental
>>>irrationality just a metaphor or just a plain contradiction?
>>
>>Neither. A transcendental real number is a real number which not the
>>root of a polynomial with ratinal coefficients. What is so difficult
>>about this definition that you do you comprehend it?
>
>
> Whether either or both definitions can be accommodated on straight
> lines between points. Wolf acknowledges that the real number line is a
> fiction for transcendentals.
No, I don't. You've misread me again, which isn't surprising,
considering your wierd notion that a number must be "commensurate" with
a _straight_ line segment, or sone such nonsense.
I didn't say the number line was a fiction, I said I thought it was a
metaphor. I also said I wasn't sure what that meant, which is a terse
way of saying I wasn't sure if it made sense to say it's a metaphor. I
still don't know, but I'm inclined to think not.
>And I just want to know if there are
> other fictions, such as SR and GR, in the magesterium of mathematics
> and science. You say that SR and GR are predictive. And I say that
> just makes them useful fictions; it doesn't make them science.
Your contrasting of science and "useful fictions" doesn't make much
sense to me. Care to elaborate?
- Next message: robert j. kolker: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Previous message: aeo6: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- In reply to: Lester Zick: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Next in thread: Lester Zick: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Reply: Lester Zick: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
