"David Rodemaker" <dar at horusinc.com> writes: > > > > >Very mildly. But they're still encouraging people to believe things > > > > >on faith rather than evidence, for example, and that's bad. People do > > > > >far to little thinking. > > > > >***************************************************************** > > > > >Clarify this for me please, are you saying that those that follow a > > > > >religion don't think? > > > > > > > > Let's not say everyone. Let us speak of someone who says, "I believe. > I > > > > believe purely on faith." Now, would you say that this person, on > this > > > > subject, is thinking? > > > > > > Any type of mathematics beyond the measurement of discrete objects that > can > > > be physically manipulated and observed at the time of 'belief'. > > > > I can't parse this sentence, sorry. > > Bah. It was poorly written in the first place. > > > But I'll point out that "measurement of discrete objects" isn't > > mathematics in the first place. > > At it's most basic it certainly is. I measure this quantity (or count it if > you prefer): 1 rock + 1 rock = 2 rocks. My arguement is that when you take > mathematics beyond the concrete and discrete you are taking it's 'truths' as > a matter of faith. Not only that but we do it despite a whole series of > famous series of paradoxes and proofs that we then label as clearly > nonsensical and should be ignored when applying mathematics in 'the real > world'. My degree is in math, in fact, so I have opinions about this :-). There's less faith in mathematics than in any other form of human endeavor. There's much more rigor, too. Now, people who *apply* mathematics to the real world have more to explain; but I don't see their work as based on *faith*; rather, it's based on empirical verification. "These equations have been used to model the strength of a beam for a *long* time and they seem to work. We'll keep using them." The exciting paradoxes don't invalidate what we have; they just demonstrate that we can't actually prove everything that's true within a consistent system. That's philosophically challenging enough, but it doesn't bring into question the underlying basis. -- David Dyer-Bennet, dd-b at dd-b.net / http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/ John Dyer-Bennet 1915-2002 Memorial Site http://john.dyer-bennet.net Dragaera mailing lists, see http://dragaera.info