What's the use.

Michael Press said:

There is no reason to attempt to persuade someone that his
assertions are wrong when he universally claims that his
assertions are correct and the assertions of everyone else
are incorrect. Is there?

All depends on the strength of that "universally".

Since some of today's accepted knowledge is unacceptably false, there
is nothing wrong with disagreeing with everyone else once in a while.
Someone has to do it if that knowledge is to be replaced with something
better. On the other hand, since some of today's accepted knowledge is
very true, always disagreeing with everyone about all of it, is both
erroneous and pathological.

One tries to a certain extent, but once pathology is confirmed, it
becomes just a matter of warning others..

Michael Press said:

There is no reason to attempt to persuade someone that his
assertions are wrong when he universally claims that his
assertions are correct and the assertions of everyone else
are incorrect. Is there?

Futility never stopped Don Quixote[1] but the severity of the
opposition may have slowed Galileo[2]. It's a balance question to an
extent; is the chance you'll do some good an adequate return for your
time and trouble? The answer to this is entirely subjective, and may
vary with circumstances.

[1] Titling at windmills fictionally, of course, but considered a
metaphor for heroic effort against an implacable foe, however
misguided.

[2] Despite the lore, he was far from the first to proclaim that the
Earth orbited the sun; that may have been accepted well before the
Christian era in some places.
--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

In article
<[email hidden]>,

41 said:

Michael Press said:

There is no reason to attempt to persuade someone that his
assertions are wrong when he universally claims that his
assertions are correct and the assertions of everyone else
are incorrect. Is there?

All depends on the strength of that "universally".

I never qualify an absolute.

--
Michael Press

In article <[email hidden]>,

Werehatrack said:

Michael Press said:

There is no reason to attempt to persuade someone that his
assertions are wrong when he universally claims that his
assertions are correct and the assertions of everyone else
are incorrect. Is there?

Futility never stopped Don Quixote[1] but the severity of the
opposition may have slowed Galileo[2]. It's a balance question to an
extent; is the chance you'll do some good an adequate return for your
time and trouble? The answer to this is entirely subjective, and may
vary with circumstances.

[1] Titling at windmills fictionally, of course, but considered a
metaphor for heroic effort against an implacable foe, however
misguided.

[2] Despite the lore, he was far from the first to proclaim that the
Earth orbited the sun; that may have been accepted well before the
Christian era in some places.

A recent theory is that Galileo had friends who plea
bargained him down to pleading guilty to publishing the
heliocentric theory. Originally he was to be tried for
asserting the atomic theory of matter, a potential death
sentence, since it contradicted the doctrine of
transubstantiation.

With regard to the heliocentric theory, the Church's
position is that they paid Copernicus to furnish a method
to predict the date of Easter and the heliocentric theory
came with the method. Therefore the Church owned all
rights to it, and Galileo had no right to publish it.

--
Michael Press

Michael Press said:

There is no reason to attempt to persuade someone that his assertions are
wrong when he universally claims that his assertions are correct and the
assertions of everyone else are incorrect. Is there?

That depends on what you hope to accomplish. I've often found engaging in
an argument with someone to be more useful to myself than to others,
regardless of who turns out to be correct. One of the best ways of
learning something well is to try to explain it to someone else.

--
Benjamin Lewis

Now is the time for all good men to come to.
-- Walt Kelly

Michael Press said:

There is no reason to attempt to persuade someone that his
assertions are wrong when he universally claims that his
assertions are correct and the assertions of everyone else
are incorrect. Is there?

Yes. In my case, I usually listen. Nobody has all the answers, and I'm
more open to suggestions than some other people on this NG, but that has to
do more with my inexperience than anything else. So for the sake of people
here who are truly trying to learn more, myself included, please *do*
attempt to persuade.
--
Phil, Squid-in-Training

In article <[email hidden]>,

Michael Press said:

With regard to the heliocentric theory, the Church's
position is that they paid Copernicus to furnish a method
to predict the date of Easter and the heliocentric theory
came with the method. Therefore the Church owned all
rights to it, and Galileo had no right to publish it.

Copyright infringement, another mortal sin to add to the fatal seven!

Luke

Michael Press said:

In article
<[email hidden]>,

41 said:

Michael Press said:

There is no reason to attempt to persuade someone that his
assertions are wrong when he universally claims that his
assertions are correct and the assertions of everyone else
are incorrect. Is there?

All depends on the strength of that "universally".

I never qualify an absolute.

I never speak in absolutes.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

Michael Press said:

There is no reason to attempt to persuade someone that his
assertions are wrong when he universally claims that his
assertions are correct and the assertions of everyone else
are incorrect. Is there?

--
Michael Press

Sounds like a room ful of republicans and democrats with some
independents and libertarians thrown in....mix well...

Michael Press said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Werehatrack said:

Michael Press said:

There is no reason to attempt to persuade someone that his
assertions are wrong when he universally claims that his
assertions are correct and the assertions of everyone else
are incorrect. Is there?

Futility never stopped Don Quixote[1] but the severity of the
opposition may have slowed Galileo[2]. It's a balance question to an
extent; is the chance you'll do some good an adequate return for your
time and trouble? The answer to this is entirely subjective, and may
vary with circumstances.

[1] Titling at windmills fictionally, of course, but considered a
metaphor for heroic effort against an implacable foe, however
misguided.

[2] Despite the lore, he was far from the first to proclaim that the
Earth orbited the sun; that may have been accepted well before the
Christian era in some places.

A recent theory is that Galileo had friends who plea
bargained him down to pleading guilty to publishing the
heliocentric theory. Originally he was to be tried for
asserting the atomic theory of matter, a potential death
sentence, since it contradicted the doctrine of
transubstantiation.

Among his friends was the Pope, and even that wasn't enough to get him off the
docket.

Quoted message said:

With regard to the heliocentric theory, the Church's
position is that they paid Copernicus to furnish a method
to predict the date of Easter and the heliocentric theory
came with the method. Therefore the Church owned all
rights to it, and Galileo had no right to publish it.

Ah, they should've just accepted the licensing fees.

Ron

Quoth Mr. Hickey:

Quoted message said:

I never speak in absolutes.

Nice deadpan.

D'ohBoy

On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 05:19:51 -0500, Luke <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Michael Press said:

With regard to the heliocentric theory, the Church's
position is that they paid Copernicus to furnish a method
to predict the date of Easter and the heliocentric theory
came with the method. Therefore the Church owned all
rights to it, and Galileo had no right to publish it.

Copyright infringement, another mortal sin to add to the fatal seven!

Number zero has, as far as I know, always been Disagreeing With Us.
--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

Michael Press said:

In article
<[email hidden]>,

41 said:

Michael Press said:

There is no reason to attempt to persuade someone that his
assertions are wrong when he universally claims that his
assertions are correct and the assertions of everyone else
are incorrect. Is there?

All depends on the strength of that "universally".

I never qualify an absolute.

I admire this. But I wonder, since you are I believe a mathematician,
how do you explain your use of Universum in Mengenlehre??

Mark Hickey said:

Michael Press said:

I never qualify an absolute.

Quoted message said:

I never speak in absolutes.

I absolutely never qualify.

🙂

--
Dave
dvt at psu dot edu

In article
<[email hidden]>,

41 said:

Michael Press said:

In article
<[email hidden]>,

41 said:

Michael Press wrote:
> There is no reason to attempt to persuade someone that his
> assertions are wrong when he universally claims that his
> assertions are correct and the assertions of everyone else
> are incorrect. Is there?

All depends on the strength of that "universally".

I never qualify an absolute.

I admire this. But I wonder, since you are I believe a mathematician,
how do you explain your use of Universum in Mengenlehre??

I have no German. Are you a doughnut?

--
Michael Press

dvt said:

Mark Hickey said:

Michael Press said:

I never qualify an absolute.

Quoted message said:

I never speak in absolutes.

I absolutely never qualify.

Generally, I sometimes absolutely qualify.

Michael Press said:

I have no German.

I must be mixing you up with someone else. I was sure I saw posts of
yours where you translated some fragment of an article in German, or
something similar. What language then? Surely only an American
mathematician might not know what Mengenlehre refers to... but you
don't sound American.

Anyrate: how then do you explain your use of "universe" in set theory?

Quoted message said:

Are you a doughnut?

Actually Kennedy was correct. Residents of the city would have found
his phrasing natural. The joke is probably from people who are learning
German, not native speakers.

But then we have some native speakers here, although perhaps from
different cities, perhaps they could pronounce on the matter.t

In article
<[email hidden]>,

41 said:

Michael Press said:

I have no German.

I must be mixing you up with someone else. I was sure I saw posts of
yours where you translated some fragment of an article in German, or
something similar. What language then? Surely only an American
mathematician might not know what Mengenlehre refers to... but you
don't sound American.

Actually, I am not a mathematician by degree or vocation.
I am a native born USA citizen, and while this state of
affairs suits me down to the ground, I try not to make
anything of it. I take this as a compliment on both
counts.

Quoted message said:

Anyrate: how then do you explain your use of "universe" in set theory?

Did not know that I had. Opening an argument with
`consider the universe of discourse' immediately sets one
to dealing with self referential statements in a formal
manner. I see the wisdom of Gauss's caution against
discussing infinity as a completed entity. There are fun
and games in it, but eventually the folks who do so get
serious about it and must work harder and harder to keep
the contradictions at bay. They cannot even settle the
matter of the continuum.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Are you a doughnut?

Actually Kennedy was correct. Residents of the city would have found
his phrasing natural. The joke is probably from people who are learning
German, not native speakers.

Ah, thank you.

Quoted message said:

But then we have some native speakers here, although perhaps from
different cities, perhaps they could pronounce on the matter.t

--
Michael Press

Michael Press said:

In article
<[email hidden]>,

41 said:

Michael Press said:

I have no German.

I must be mixing you up with someone else. I was sure I saw posts of
yours where you translated some fragment of an article in German, or
something similar. What language then? Surely only an American
mathematician might not know what Mengenlehre refers to... but you
don't sound American.

Actually, I am not a mathematician by degree or vocation.
I am a native born USA citizen, and while this state of
affairs suits me down to the ground, I try not to make
anything of it. I take this as a compliment on both
counts.

Congratulations, you had me fooled. My second guess is any combination
of Boston Brahmin, Harvard, philosopher. But then, one hears of
grammarians and educated people hiding in all sorts of unexpected
corners of the USA.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Any rate: how then do you explain your use of "universe" in set theory?

Did not know that I had.

You hadn't (since you are not a mathematician)... until that is, below:

Quoted message said:

Opening an argument with
`consider the universe of discourse'

This is pretty well equivalent to the situation I proposed. The point
is: if your universe of discourse is anything less than, well, the
universe- i.e. if it needs any specification beyond the invocation of
the absolute concept itself- then you have just qualified an absolute.
Of course, the whole point of invoking a universe of discourse is to do
just that.

Quoted message said:

I see the wisdom of Gauss's caution against
discussing infinity as a completed entity. There are fun
and games in it, but eventually the folks who do so get
serious about it and must work harder and harder to keep
the contradictions at bay. The y cannot even settle the
matter of the continuum.

If by this you mean the paradoxes of what might be called "free-reign
measure theory", it's not hard work at all, no different from the
paradoxes of division by zero: just ban the procedures that cause
problems. The lazy man's way out, i.e. the goal of all mathematical
practice. With a certain definition of laziness.

The intuitionists were able to re-construct large amounts of modern
mathematics, but not the whole of it.