Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
From: Neil W Rickert (rickert+nn_at_cs.niu.edu)
Date: 02/11/05
- Next message: The Twisted Dreams of Fascinet: "Re: Dumb Relativity Question"
- Previous message: Neil W Rickert: "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"
- Reply: aeo6: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 21:38:53 +0000 (UTC)
lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net (Lester Zick) writes:
>The is precisely the kind of distinction that isn't accounted for in
>commutative mechanics like cardinal mathematics. In cardinal math
>beans are just beans and chemicals chemicals and nothing more or they
>wouldn't commute. In predication it matters a great deal how non
>commutative things are predicated in relation to one another.
Sorry to break in, but cardinal math says nothing at all about either
beans or about chemicals.
- Next message: The Twisted Dreams of Fascinet: "Re: Dumb Relativity Question"
- Previous message: Neil W Rickert: "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"
- Reply: aeo6: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|