Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
From: Lester Zick (lesterDELzick_at_worldnet.att.net)
Date: 03/17/05
- Next message: The World Wide Wade: "Re: [analysis] I'm halfway this integral"
- Previous message: Jim Spriggs: "Re: "separate entity" and individuation in mathematics"
- In reply to: robert j. kolker: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Next in thread: Albert Wagner: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 19:37:18 GMT
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 12:34:01 -0500, "robert j. kolker"
<nowhere@nowhere.net> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>Daryl McCullough wrote:
>
>>
>> It's really a totalitarian mindset, not free-thinking.
>
>They use an operational definition. It goes "If I (the crack point)
>cannot understand something, it makes (or ought to make) no sense to
>anyone else". It is the elevation of ignorance and stupidity to a virtue.
Yes, yes, I've noticed a distinctly well defined bijection between
ignorance, stupidity, and modern mathematikers. Tell us more.
>The interesting thing is that mathematics which was conceived of very
>abstractly and with no physical or practical application in mind, has
>been drafted into the service of physics, and other sciences with good
>and useful results. For example, without the concept of probability
>(invented initially to calculate odds in card games) there would be no
>quantum theory as we know it. Without Riemannian geometry which was
>conceived to see how far Gauss' notions of intrinsic geometrical
>properties could be carried, there would be no General Theory of
>Relativity and no GPS. Without boolean algebra which was an
>algebrization of Aristotle's logic we would be hard put to design
>complicated computer components. And so on and so on. Anything no
>forbidden by inconsistency is permitted.
More slogans and handwaving. I thought all this was the result of
hermit operators and Hilbert crawl spaces. Better get your story
straight before you run it up a flagpole, Bob.
Regards - Lester
- Next message: The World Wide Wade: "Re: [analysis] I'm halfway this integral"
- Previous message: Jim Spriggs: "Re: "separate entity" and individuation in mathematics"
- In reply to: robert j. kolker: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Next in thread: Albert Wagner: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
