From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!ames!ncar!noao!arizona!gudeman Tue Feb 11 15:25:21 EST 1992
Article 3547 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!ames!ncar!noao!arizona!gudeman
>From: gudeman@cs.arizona.edu (David Gudeman)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Intelligence Testing
Message-ID: <12412@optima.cs.arizona.edu>
Date: 6 Feb 92 19:12:07 GMT
Sender: news@cs.arizona.edu
Lines: 45

In article  <1992Feb5.130832.4960@mp.cs.niu.edu> Neil Rickert writes:
]In article <12325@optima.cs.arizona.edu> gudeman@cs.arizona.edu (David Gudeman) writes:
]>In article  <1992Feb2.222838.11793@mp.cs.niu.edu> Neil Rickert writes:
]>No, I questioned your knowledge of the philosophy of mathematics.  And
]>you have said nothing to change my mind.
]
]In article <11962@optima.cs.arizona.edu> gudeman@cs.arizona.edu (David Gudeman) writes:
]>
]>Well, one of us doesn't understand mathematics.  Or science for that
]>matter.
]
]  Now where was the reference to "philosophy of mathematics"?
]
]  Wonderful style of debate you use, David.  Make stupid statements.  Then
]when challenged on them, lie about what they said in a dishonest attempt
]to counter attack.

You know, I fully expected to see this.  Not because I thought you
might catch me in a lie, but because your debate tactics in the past
led me to expect you to dig up this quote, which, taken out of
context, might be construed as a contradiction.

What were we talking about when you said that I don't understand
mathematics, Neil?  Were we talking about differential equations, or
category theory, or abstract algebra?  No, we were talking about the
underlying nature and assumptions of mathematics, in other words, the
philosophy of mathematics.  When you said that _I_ don't understand
mathematics, I took the meaning in the obvious way, that you think I
don't understand the aspect of mathematics that we were discussing,
and I replied in kind.

In your reply to that, you showed that you mis-took my meaning (and I
doubt this was an honest error even then) by telling me you are a
professor, the implication being that you could not have gotten that
exalted position without understanding the methods and theories of
your field.  Duly impressed, I replied methaphorically, in such a way
as to clarify my meaning: that you may understand the methods, but not
the assumptions behind the methods.  You have no excuse now for
claiming that you misunderstood my meaning, and the out-of-context
quote above is clearly an example of sleazy debate tactics.  But it is
you that is guilty, not me.
--
					David Gudeman
gudeman@cs.arizona.edu
noao!arizona!gudeman


