Quantiative Science Before Galileo
in [Math]
|
Prev: Unhappiness about product rule
Next: look upon 231! not as #rearrangements but as volume or time #647 Correcting Math
From: Robert Higgins on 28 Jul 2010 15:04 On Jul 28, 12:53 pm, Darwin123 <drosen0...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jul 15, 2:30 pm, Bret Cahill <BretCah...(a)peoplepc.com> wrote: > > > This is easy to know because libertarianism consists of denying that > > relationships exist. Not only are all equations linearly independent > > in Libertaria, but variables in one equation never appear anywhere > > else. > I agree.... > > > Bret Cahill > > > "Math is applied logic." > > > -- Nietzsche > > ..., however, I despise Nietze. Nietze was perhaps the worse > libertarian there ever was. He may have surpassed Anne Rynd. It is a shame that you despise Nietze, whoever the hell that is. One wonders who "Anne Rynd" was, as well. There was an author named "Ayn Rand", who had some interesting points of view that could well be described as libertarian. Nietzsche, on the other hand, (as opposed to this "Nietze" person) had many powerful insights. By no stretch of the imagination, though, could Nietzsche be described as a "libertarian".
From: Bret Cahill on 28 Jul 2010 18:44 > > This is easy to know because libertarianism consists of denying that > > relationships exist. Not only are all equations linearly independent > > in Libertaria, but variables in one equation never appear anywhere > > else. > I agree.... > > > Bret Cahill > > > "Math is applied logic." > > > -- Nietzsche > > ..., however, I despise Nietze. Nietze was perhaps the worse > libertarian there ever was. Nietzsche was reacting against the 1848 revolutions in Europe which is why he is easy to misunderstand. His style was to keep the protonazis from reading his material and he went insane when that didn't work. It's interesting to compare N. with Tocqueville -- who embraced democracy and is easy to understand -- because both often said the same things but from a completely different POV. Both predicted the wars of the 20th Century and both claimed that "nothing happened during the French Revolution." Both were against socialism but T. was no liberdope. T. believed government should be "active and powerful." T. knew democratic freedom, bad as it was, was the best you could do. N was going to fight democracy, Christianity and everything else on the planet. The problem with N. is that he never actually says anything new. He's really a kind of a Cliff Notes of Western Civilization. It's 100% certain N. would take that as the greatest insult but he's a lively writer which is good enough. > He may have surpassed Anne Rynd. No comparison. Ayn Rand, a silly girl fiction writer, was like those immigrants who always adopt the extreme vices of their new country and then make the vices 100 times worse than the original. No one would ever make those charges against N., not even the 99.999% of the public who misunderstand him. Bret Cahill ". . . in the very next century when Russia will, to borrow a term from our physicists, 'discharge' herself . . ." -- Nietzsche
From: Michael Stemper on 29 Jul 2010 08:19 In article <26198279-7758-4f66-8725-31c7144bee94(a)t2g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>, Robert Higgins <robert_higgins_61(a)hotmail.com> writes: >On Jul 28, 12:53=A0pm, Darwin123 <drosen0...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> On Jul 15, 2:30=A0pm, Bret Cahill <BretCah...(a)peoplepc.com> wrote: >> > "Math is applied logic." >> >> > -- Nietzsche >> >> =A0 =A0 =A0 ..., however, I despise Nietze. Nietze was perhaps the worse >> libertarian there ever was. He may have surpassed Anne Rynd. > >It is a shame that you despise Nietze, whoever the hell that is. One >wonders who "Anne Rynd" was, as well. There was an author named "Ayn >Rand", who had some interesting points of view that could well be >described as libertarian. > >Nietzsche, on the other hand, (as opposed to this "Nietze" person) had >many powerful insights. By no stretch of the imagination, though, >could Nietzsche be described as a "libertarian". I think he's referring the linebacker Ray Nitschke. -- Michael F. Stemper #include <Standard_Disclaimer> A bad day sailing is better than a good day at the office.
From: Chazwin on 29 Jul 2010 15:08 On Jul 11, 12:32 am, Bret Cahill <BretCah...(a)peoplepc.com> wrote: > > > Or are you a conspiracy theorist who believes 98% of the scientists on > > > the planet are in on a conspiracy? > > That's about the same percentage who held that the Sun went round the > > Earth. > > When did who believe that? > > Bret Cahill The Ptolemaic model was adopted by the Roman church and basically all scholars until Copernicus re-introduced Aristarchus' model.
From: Chazwin on 29 Jul 2010 15:09
On Jul 14, 4:57 pm, Bret Cahill <BretCah...(a)peoplepc.com> wrote: > > > > > > Yet you believe that those in the "soft sciences" are qualified to > > > > > > comment on the "hard sciences"? ...particularly those that are not > > > > > > well understood? > > > > > > I would offer one example of how the hard sciences absolutely require > > > > > the soft social sciences. Peer review, which is a social science based > > > > > upon various sociology methodologies > > > > > Peer review is not based upon any social science whatsoever. A person > > > > chooses those to review an article. > > > > Peer review is based upon social science methodology and statistics, a > > > soft science. > > > When, for example, a mathematical theory is reviewed, a chairperson > > chooses the reviewers. That is the method. > > Math ain't science. > > Bret Cahill Except that all pure sciences depend heavily on it. |