Surely You're Joking, Mr. Zeilberger?
in [Math]
|
Prev: solar power
Next: two most famous and important proofs in all of mathematics-- Pythagoras & AP-finite-selection #437 Correcting Math
From: Angus Rodgers on 16 Feb 2010 17:24 On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 16:22:03 -0500, David Bernier <david250(a)videotron.ca> wrote: >I'd say that Zeilberger is quite settled in his finitistic views of >the universes of physics and maths. Yes. Although his /style/ is humorous and provocative, he seems to be deadly serious about that. As with all other philosophies of mathematics, I just don't understand it, but that's my problem! -- Angus Rodgers
From: Gerry Myerson on 16 Feb 2010 17:49 In article <877hqdqycb.fsf(a)dialatheia.truth.invalid>, Aatu Koskensilta <aatu.koskensilta(a)uta.fi> wrote: > People are capable of believing, or at least professing to believe, the > most peculiar things without it affecting their work in the least, even > in areas that are seemingly directly implicated in these their > (professed) beliefs. Indeed, an astronomer of my acquaintance firmly believes that the universe was created about 6000 years ago, which doesn't stop him from doing work that relies on the more usual estimates. He is aware of the contradiction, and says it's just one of those things he accepts; he's sure there's a way to reconcile the two views, even if he himself hasn't come up with one. -- Gerry Myerson (gerry(a)maths.mq.edi.ai) (i -> u for email)
From: Aatu Koskensilta on 17 Feb 2010 02:34 David Bernier <david250(a)videotron.ca> writes: > It seems to me that many philosophical views are very hard to prove > wrong, maybe because things can't be tested, etc. In general the idea of proving a philosophical idea wrong is silly. We're dealing rather with "a sort of persuasion" as the old Witters put it. It's a matter of ideas, ways of thinking, various more or less natural attitudes, and proof simply doesn't enter into it. -- Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.koskensilta(a)uta.fi) "Wovon man nicht sprechan kann, dar�ber muss man schweigen" - Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
From: David Bernier on 17 Feb 2010 05:55
Aatu Koskensilta wrote: > David Bernier <david250(a)videotron.ca> writes: > >> It seems to me that many philosophical views are very hard to prove >> wrong, maybe because things can't be tested, etc. > > In general the idea of proving a philosophical idea wrong is > silly. We're dealing rather with "a sort of persuasion" as the old > Witters put it. It's a matter of ideas, ways of thinking, various more > or less natural attitudes, and proof simply doesn't enter into it. Yes, I think that's a good way of putting it. I've wondered at times if there could be formal rules for debating (just as happens on Usenet) that could be advantageous to a good debate. For a two-person debate or discussion, some examples of rules or guidelines would be: (a) No ad-hominem attacks. (b) To stay on topic (a bit of leeway is fine). (c) Keep in mind that rhetoric isn't persuasive (at the end of the day?). (d) Debaters can make one or more points per exchange. (e) For each point raised by the other side, it's a good idea to state what one's own view is, e.g.: (i) Point 25a accepted. (ii) The point is neither accepted nor challenged. The point's meaning is clear. To be addressed later by me (or should be). (iii) Request for clarification on Point 25a: [to be completed]. (iv) [An opposition] My response to Point 25a is: [statements] oppositions can also be called "counter-points". (f) In addition to answering the other side's points or counterpoints, one can make new points. (g) When it's their turn, a debater can also ask a question addressed to the other debater. (h) A sensible reply to a question is for example: (i) Give a reply. (ii) Ask for the question to be clarified. (iii) Accept the question as formulated and say something like: "I'll think about it". (I) Example of good question: What's your basis for saying [...] ? [ If it's a scientific debate, one could ask what the source of some unexplained statement is, e.g. for the statement "Some birds of the same genus as penguins can fly." ] (j) If a series of points/counterpoints goes on long enough, and if both debaters feel it's worth it, they can enter a sub-debate, labeled e.g. "Sub-debate on point 12b which was made by T. ." (k) Alternatively, for long series of points and counterpoints, if the debaters are tired of discussing that point, they can mutually agree to close the debate on that point to leave time for other points. (l) It could be a good idea to propose conclusions and summaries after a long enough period. To count, the conclusions and summaries must be accepted by the two sides. (m) Maybe think of following the Don't Repeat Yourself principle, depending on circumstances. Reference: < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_repeat_yourself > An example in a debate would be to cite one primary source for a fact rather than come up with two separate secondary sources, especially if both secondary sources rely on the same primary source. I'd be interested to hear about recommended ways to have good debates. David Bernier |