At around 1/7/06 1:59 pm, Doyle Saylor wrote:
> Greetings Economists,
> On Jul 1, 2006, at 10:41 AM, ravi wrote:
>
>> 1. (a) A body of knowledge expressed in a (b) particular language
>> (math)
>
> Doyle;
> It is obvious to me that math is not a language. It is a different
> kind of mental work.
>
I used language in the trivial sense of a way to communicate and codify
using symbols. If you can supply me with a better term I will gladly
adopt it, since I agree with you that math is indeed not a language.
> The confusion engendered by claiming this, is
> fundamental to the argument. I'm not going to pick through the rest of
> your comments. If you want to debate this central point, or not debate
> but expose the conceptual chasm then by all means.
I do not believe that my lax identification of math as a language is
central to my argument, if I understand what you are saying above
correctly. Could you elaborate? I am definitely interested in hearing more.
Also, in my previous post I had mentioned that we should reclaim the
attitude of rational, open-minded thinking susceptible to empirical and
logical verification. But that is itself a bit naive and only half the
story. On the one hand, other forms of thinking, irrational, mystical,
metaphorical, etc have great value, while on the other, as Einstein had
remarked, one cannot flip-flop on one's theories on the basis of
ever-changing data (not to forget the old bit about the theoretical
basis of "facts"). The crucial issue is neither certainty (accompanied
by the occasional "will to stupidity") or flip-flopping on theories, but
tolerance and sensitivity in one's attitudes and actions.
--ravi
--
Support something better than yourself: ;-)
PeTA: http://www.peta.org/
GreenPeace: http://www.greenpeace.org/
