Print

Print


--part1_dd.116bb2bf.27debd21_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

In a message dated 3/12/01 6:21:53 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
[log in to unmask] writes:


> I'm of course exaggerating ... . Theory is nothing to gloss over and can be 
> very very useful, elegant and quick. But it's a theory, and theories have a 
> history of being overturned in practice. People are often blinded by the 
> beauty of an elegant theory, but often the real test for a theory is when 
> we apply them to the world; that's usually where things start going wrong. 
> And therefore I think there is definitely something to say for being able 
> to prove something 'uitputtend' as we say in Dutch, exhaustive. It's not 
> always necessary, it's not always elegant, but it's rock solid. You also 
> often really need it when applying a theory to the world, because when you 
> use a theory in practice you also have an impure domain to cover; practical 
> 

You better get caught up on Wittgenstein or Benjamin Whorf, because you're 
saying things that don't make any sense. What's "rock solid" about examining 
every person in the world to discover, say, that nobody in the world has an 
s-shaped scar on their left shoulder? What is that supposed to "prove" about 
whether there ever was such a person in the past or might be in the future?

p

--part1_dd.116bb2bf.27debd21_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT  SIZE=3 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial Narrow" LANG="0"><B>In a message dated 3/12/01 6:21:53 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
<BR>[log in to unmask] writes:
<BR>
<BR></FONT><FONT  COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"></B>
<BR></FONT><FONT  COLOR="#0000ff" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"><BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">I'm of course exaggerating ... . Theory is nothing to gloss over and can be 
<BR>very very useful, elegant and quick. But it's a theory, and theories have a 
<BR>history of being overturned in practice. People are often blinded by the 
<BR>beauty of an elegant theory, but often the real test for a theory is when 
<BR>we apply them to the world; that's usually where things start going wrong. 
<BR>And therefore I think there is definitely something to say for being able 
<BR>to prove something 'uitputtend' as we say in Dutch, exhaustive. It's not 
<BR>always necessary, it's not always elegant, but it's rock solid. You also 
<BR>often really need it when applying a theory to the world, because when you 
<BR>use a theory in practice you also have an impure domain to cover; practical 
<BR>situations do not always meet a theoretical domain</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR></FONT><FONT  COLOR="#000000" SIZE=3 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial Narrow" LANG="0"><B>
<BR>You better get caught up on Wittgenstein or Benjamin Whorf, because you're 
<BR>saying things that don't make any sense. What's "rock solid" about examining 
<BR>every person in the world to discover, say, that nobody in the world has an 
<BR>s-shaped scar on their left shoulder? What is that supposed to "prove" about 
<BR>whether there ever was such a person in the past or might be in the future?
<BR>
<BR>p</B></FONT></HTML>

--part1_dd.116bb2bf.27debd21_boundary--