Email address obfuscation in effect -- please
click here to turn it off.
[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
Mike Miller wrote:
Well, now you've got me, but you didn't specify cardinality. I guess it
has to be countable though.
Anyway, I do think, more seriously, that there is a difference between
our ways of thinking about "truth." You are a mathematician and things
are either true, not true, or unknown. I think more like a
statistician/scientist and see things as only shades of gray. Looking
at the same thing you might say "unproven" and I might say "give me a
break" because what I'm thinking is "obviously almost black." For the
mathematician, "unproven" isn't in the same spectrum as black and white,
but nothing in science is ever proven in the sense that things are
proven in mathematics.
So I think that is one reason why we sometimes disagree more than we
should. We aren't thinking about evidence in the same way.
Yes, but I don't think I think about truth the same way as the average
mathematician. I consider myself an amateur dabbler in epistemology.
Books that greatly influenced me were "Proper Confidence" by Lesslie
Newbigin, and "Mathematics: The Loss of Certainty" by Morris Kline.
Stephen
_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion
Home | FAQ | Server | Presentations | Mailing Lists/Archives | Member Tools | Links | Sponsors | Contact