In article <ehrebeniuk-1B2D4A.09520016052008@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
Chookie <ehrebeniuk@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>In article <g0fnke$4ffa@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> hrubin@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Herman Rubin) wrote:
>> Complex written do***ents are usually much easier to read
>> and understand if a fair amount of mathematical notation,
>> and "mathematical" logic, are used to get through the
>> verbiage. How can one think critically if one cannot at
>> least use the part of logic which we understand.
>LOL. I can picture a young Herman summing up Ode On a Grecian Urn as:
>a=b therefore b=a
If a=b, then b=a. It is more misused as a implies b,
therefore b implies a, which is fallacious.
>after "getting through the verbiage"... is that what you meant?
Are we evaluating the poem as a work of art, or as
a declaration of something. As a work of art,
"de gustibus non disputandem est" (my Latin is not
perfect) definitely applies.
>Your statement applies more to philosophical writing, where the writer
puts
>forward a proposition, argues for it, and carefully delineates the area
in
>which it might hold true.
It applies more to policy discussions. Look at the
claims made by politicians; they usually promise the
impossible. I do not mean politically unacceptable,
although this occurs, but requiring that some laws of
nature be "repealed".
Thousands of laws people have spoken;
A handful the Creator sent.
The former are frequently broken;
The latter can't even be bent.
BTW, a philosopher has been defined as someone who is
looking for a black cat in a totally dark room, and finds it!
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
hrubin@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
|
