Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
From: Lester Zick (lesterDELzick_at_worldnet.att.net)
Date: 03/17/05
- Next message: Lester Zick: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Previous message: aeo6: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- In reply to: Daryl McCullough: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Next in thread: aeo6: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 19:32:44 GMT
On 17 Mar 2005 09:07:47 -0800, stevendaryl3016@yahoo.com (Daryl
McCullough) in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>You know, there is a romantic notion of the brave, free-thinking
>iconoclast being repressed by the closed-minded establishment.
>You might think that the uncensored nature of USENET would be
>a perfect forum for such free-thinkers. But in my experience, the
>"dissidents" (AKA "crackpots") on USENET are not complaining about
>how *closed-minded* the establishment is, but how *open-minded*.
So, Daryl, is this set of crackpots countably uncountable? Is there a
well defined bijection between the set of all facts and the set of all
true facts? And is there a well defined bijection between the set of
all mathematikers and the set of all points that mathematikers claim
define a circle but really define a sphere? I'm not so sure truth is
as romantic as it is universal. But I am sure it has no well defined
bijection with modern mathematikers.
>Their complaints are about how nonsensical relativity, or quantum
>mechanics, or Cantorian set theory, or Godel's theory is. What these
>dissidents want is not a hearing for their *new* ideas (because they
>rarely have any), but for other ideas to be banished.
I'm less interested in hearing than true lies about ideas and science.
>It's really a totalitarian mindset, not free-thinking.
Whereas the mathematiker mindset is more free wheeling than universal.
Regards - Lester
- Next message: Lester Zick: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Previous message: aeo6: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- In reply to: Daryl McCullough: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Next in thread: aeo6: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|