Yes Georges and even agreed. I'd guess this - one brave RN officer dashing about in a sinking U-boat may well have had more to do with breaking Enigma than any fatuous 'logic' about any false proposition implying all others. That plus some decent Polish work before the war. I've met people who could apply searing intellect to problems that had me like a dog chasing its tail. Some of them could even dress themselves - others seemed to use 'logic' to rationalise cheating on their wives. Cheating on partners does not have to be problematic, or even necessary. I'm wondering whether your unsurpassed summit was surpassed - perhaps by von Newman and his sidekick Morgenstern.
On 26 Aug, 14:27, Georges Metanomski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Whatever social science may prattle and whatever the > merits of technology, I simply wrote a proof that Goedel's > Theorem is the unsurpassed summit of idiocy ever committed > in pseudo-science. A point, that's all. Did you read it? > Georges. > > --- On Tue, 8/26/08, archytas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > 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. > > > > ===================- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
