Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
From: robert j. kolker (nowhere_at_nowhere.net)
Date: 02/09/05
- Next message: robert j. kolker: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Previous message: farooq_w_at_hotmail.com: "Re: How much TNT would it take to blow up Mecca?"
- In reply to: Lester Zick: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Next in thread: Jason: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Reply: Jason: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Reply: Lester Zick: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 14:04:19 -0500
> People aren't animals and there are certainly animals that count.
1. We are animals. We eat, we bleed, we *** and we ***. Just like dogs
and cows.
2. Counting is not doing mathematics, it is naming. Yes. Crows can count
to 6 or so but they cannot generalize. They have not got the intelligence.
> Which raises the curious question whether they're counting countable
> infinities and doing modern math?
They are doing no such thing.
Bob Kolker
- Next message: robert j. kolker: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Previous message: farooq_w_at_hotmail.com: "Re: How much TNT would it take to blow up Mecca?"
- In reply to: Lester Zick: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Next in thread: Jason: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Reply: Jason: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Reply: Lester Zick: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]