We might say "logic smodgik" in respect of a lot of academic work. In social science Godel was hailed as somehow allowing intution at the expense of hard work - strangely lots of brain dumps of twaddle lacking intuition followed. I quite like the idea of reliable software doing work that would otherwise consume lifetimes, much as I welcome technology in farming to save broken backs - yet there is a price to pay if this is just to doom us to fat idleness and idle criminality or the inanities of single Gaussian copula based super- computing to keep an idle rich or consume us in Dr. Strangelove's Game. We do not pay enough attention to what logic becomes once it is playing a part in practical matters, and when idiots render it unquestionable.
On 26 Aug, 09:17, Georges Metanomski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- On Tue, 8/26/08, archytas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I'd take a different tack on Godel. ... > > =============== > Before taking it have a look at > " LIAR'S PARADOX" > inhttp://findgeorges.com/ROOT/RELATIVISTIC_DIALECTIC/C_MODELING_AND_LOG... > which clearly shows that of all cortege following > Russell's fatuous "logic" Goedel was the most asinine, > not worth while losing a minute to tackle with. > Georges. > > =================== --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
