Newsgroups: talk.origins,sci.skeptic,alt.postmodern,sci.lang,alt.feminism
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!bb3.andrew.cmu.edu!newsfeed.pitt.edu!godot.cc.duq.edu!newsgate.duke.edu!zombie.ncsc.mil!nntp.coast.net!howland.reston.ans.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!hearst.acc.Virginia.EDU!murdoch!usenet
From: dcs2e@darwin.clas.virginia.edu (David Swanson)
Subject: Re: Scientific Epistomology, or "Social Text" Editors Make Ted
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: ara-mac-214.itc.virginia.edu
Message-ID: <DsKw99.45J@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
X-Posted-From: InterNews 1.0.1@ara-mac-214.itc.virginia.edu
Sender: -Not-Authenticated-[9087]
Organization: University of Virginia
References: <4ovv75$91d@peaches.cs.utexas.edu> <31B3B99A.6087@usa.net> 
 <DsHMp5.4J@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> <4p2f0p$p13@news.ox.ac.uk> 
 <DsIxu5.DHH@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> <31B5B999.527C@usa.net> 
 <DsJqqy.Mxt@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>  <31B66F0B.1402@us.
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 1996 12:34:20 GMT
Xdisclaimer: No attempt was made to authenticate the sender's name.
Lines: 51
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu sci.skeptic:177644 sci.lang:55280

In article <31B66F0B.1402@usa.net>
David Knapp <dk@usa.net> writes:

> > I certainly missed your counter-example.  One would have thought that
> > would be the thing to repeat, rather than giving a little narrative
> > about how you've already solved everything.  
> 
>    You said that without a final theory, we cannot converge on a final
> theory.  I hope you remember that, as you wrote it.
> 
>    I responded that we cannot completely characterize pi, yet there are
> series that converge to pi; that can be proven.


We are in agreement that there is a number called pi.  It is this
number: c/d. Thus we can approach it.

We are (I thought) in agreement that the phrase "final theory" means
nothing.  Thus we cannot approach IT.

Comprende?



> 
>    Another example would be infinity, which cannot be said to "exist."
> Yet the function 1/x diverges (converges to infinity) as x goes to zero.
> 
>    Therefore, your statement that "without x, we cannot converge to x"
> is shown to have counterexamples.  Thus, it is up to you to support the
> original assertion.
> 
> > I still have no idea
> > how one could converge on something meaningless.
> 
>    Let me guess -- you've never taken any advanced math classes, have you?
> Read about the Cantor set, if you can.  It has an infinite number of 
> members and zero size.  By your definitions, it is entirely meaningless.
> Yet one can converge to it.  If you don't know what the Cantor set is, then
> go read about it.  You can find it in any introductory real analysis book.
> 
>   -- Dave


David

"Resistance to the proposition that the essence of truth is freedom is
based on preconceptions, the most obstinate of which is that freedom is
a property of man."  Martin Heidegger, "On the Essence of Truth," [Vom
Wesen der Wahrheit] translated by John Sallis, in "Basic Writings,"
(old version, 1977) p.126.
