Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science

mmeron_at_cars3.uchicago.edu
Date: 03/23/05 

Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 20:48:10 GMT

In article <Nzg0e.7988$JK1.529312@news20.bellglobal.com>, Wolf Kirchmeir <wwolfkir@sympatico.ca> writes:
>Albert Wagner wrote:
>> Dave Rusin wrote:
>>
>>> In article <AN20e.14999$Fy.9304@okepread04>,
>>> Albert Wagner <albertwagner@cox.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> I would be very interested in hearing a mathematical definition of
>>>> 'infinite'/'infinity' that is not recursive.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Definition: a set X is said to be infinite if there is a function
>>> f : X --> X which is one-to-one but not onto.
>>>
>>> Is that "recursive"? (It IS the usual definition of the adjective
>>> "infinite"
>>> as applied to "set".)
>>
>>
>> Geez. You are truly illiterate. That is not a definition of
>> 'infinite'. In fact, it is not a definition of anything.
>
>Notice, Dave, how Albert doesn't address the issue, but instead insults
>you. That's his techqniue when you say something sensible that he
>doesn't agree with, because to agree with it would be to admit that he
>was wrong, or worse, made a mistake (maybe even -- horrors! - a silly
>mistake.)
>
>Of course your statement is a definition. It shows how to use
>"infinite" in specified context. But Albert doesn't like specific
>contexts, and even less does he like specific examples, because that
>would mean he has to admit that his vague notions about what a word
>means might actually be nonsense. See how he attacked me for providing
>an example of how to use "accurate" and "precise" -- he said I was
>obviously incapable of constructing a general definition of these terms.
>But he was unwilling to provide one himself.
>
>Then he attacked me for a comment in which I assumed that he used
>"metaphysical" in the sense given in my dictionary, and he called me a
>fucking idiot. I replied once more in a civilised fashion, and he
>insulted me again.
>
>There's no point. He suffers from some pathology of the ego, and lashes
>out in rage whenever he is caught making some kind of mistake. He thinks
>of debating and argument in terms of winning and losing: note his
>unseemly crowing like a demented cockerel whenever he thinks he has won
>a debating point. The last thing he wants to do is learn anything from
>other people.

Many years ago, during one of the pomo invasions of sci.physics,
somebody brought up the terms "Apolonian argument" and "Dionisian
argument" (supposedly these terms exist since antiquity). In a nutshell,
an Apolonian argument is a tool, used to arrive at some conclusion. A
Dionisian argument, on the other hand, is its own purpose, those who
engage in such don't care about learning what's right or wrong, what's
true of false, the sole goal is "winning" (though it is a quite silly
notion of winning).

The only worthwhile reason to respond to practitioners of Dionisian
argument is when you're not really talking to them, but "through
them", i.e. when your goal is not to convince your opponent (a waste
of time) but to educate bystanders. If that's what you're doing in
this argument, fine. Else, I suggest you read my sig.:-)

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"

Quantcast