Paul said: "But when physicists actually use the theory, it's the mathematical structure that they use, not the verbal conceptualization."
Paul- I agree - they are using what is represented by the mathematical structure. But I think what some would argue is that the math is a *representation* in non-linguistic but still codified human terms of that which the theory actually represents (the ding an sich of it). In other words, the theory IS limited and circular in a sense. But the truth it represents (i.e., the Science as opposed to the science) is not using the mathematical structure (naw- I'm not buying it either!). :) Certainly not the argument of a mathematician!! I think the argument confuses theoretical structure and mathematical *coding* of it- but it is fun to think about it and try to wiggle oneself out of the circle, as it were. My students actually love the task so long as there isn't a right answer and I stick to grading how well the construct they argument(s). They are truly proud that they figured out this kind of argument. Then you point out that they just logically proved (not the same as we use the word commonly) that their own argument is wrong. :) Tim _______________________________ Timothy O. Shearon, PhD Professor and Chair Department of Psychology The College of Idaho Caldwell, ID 83605 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] teaching: intro to neuropsychology; psychopharmacology; general; history and systems "What we have done for ourselves alone dies with us; what we have done for others and the world remains and is immortal." - Albert Pike --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
<<winmail.dat>>
