--- On Sun, 11/29/09, archytas <[email protected]> wrote:
> Just more shorthand on the
> idiot.
===============
G:
Which idiot?
================
Neil:
There is a separation of truth and
> meaning in scientific epistemology.
=================
G:
Quite a separation indeed:
There ain't no sich animal as "truth" in science. There is a fuzzy
plausibility, but even that has nothing to do with "meaning".
"Meaning" (of abstraction) is the pointer to observable event(s)
it represents.
=================
Neil:
We speak of holes as though they are objects, ...
================
G:
Who speaks? About which "holes"? And what are "objects"?
===============
Neil:
... of light as propagated with mass rather than as
disturbance in a medium.
===============
G:
Which "mass"? Mass is just a mathematical coefficient having no
phenomenal meaning. Which "medium"? How "disturbed"?
Since the death of Aether light has no "medium", disturbed or
otherwise.
Present my respects to the idiot.
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.
