Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science

From: Lady Chatterly (not-bot_at_catcher.in.the.rye)
Date: 02/16/05 

Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 18:56:14 GMT

In article <1108577660.471003.296550@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
OsherD <mdoctorow@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>The philosophers here are much more correct than the physicists and
>mathematicians, but both are finally showing at least a desire to
>communicate. However, the lack of knowledge of philosophy by the
>scientists/mathematicians is really noteworthy. This can easily be
>repaired if they apply the same intensity of effort and search for
>causes and core concepts to philosophy that they hopefully should apply
>to their fields (but apparently don't fully do so there either).

I am not going to do with it.

>The big problem with physics is anomalies and paradoxes. I don't think
>Bob or the other mathematicians/physicists have read much about this.
>Read Max Jammer's (CUNY, Ramat-Gan U. Israel) The Philosophy of Quantum
>Mechanics, Wiley: N.Y. 1974, and T. Y. Cao's (Boston U.) Conceptual
>Developments of 20th Century Field Theories, Cambridge University
>Press: Cambridge U.K. 1997. It should take you a minimum of a few
>weeks to read those (my advice: don't come back to this forum without
>doing so, unless on a different topic).

S.

>As for probability, you're all wrong. Read my paper in B. N.
>Kursunuglu et al (Eds.)
>Quantum Gravity, Generalized Theory of Gravitation, and Superstring
>Theory-Based Unification, Kluwer: N.Y. 2000, 89-97, and also my
>sci.stat.math postings for about the past 2 years, which should take
>you also a few weeks. Those are actually only a start, but unlike
>most physicists and mathematicians, I began each posting to
>sci.stat.math with a clear set of definitions, axioms, theorems,
>proofs, even stated remarks, for most of the 2 years. Then you can
>look at my other postings elsewhere and some of my other work. If I
>don't see an improvement soon in readers' understanding of
>probability-statistics, I'll start teaching it on this forum!

C.

>Osher Doctorow

Another poster who doesn't know how to read. In other words you don't
get any brownie points for being dumb or acting dumb. 

--
Lady Chatterly
"Is this an example of Lady Loverley's Chatter?" -- Nemo

Relevant Pages
Quantcast