Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 46 to 52 of 52
  1. #46
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,570
    Quote Originally Posted by Mangafranga
    But when you finally answered the question the discussion was resolved. Fairly good evidence for the question's relevance.
    In your mind yes. But only because you got a bee in your bonnet over the terminology.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mangafranga
    They seem fairly distinct concepts to me, actually. "mathematical logic" is a subject. "logician of the mathematical tradition" as you use it, refers to people.
    The phrase that I used originally was "mathematical logician" to contrast with "philosophical logician". I never referred to the subject of "mathematical logic" until you brought it up. It was then and remains irrelevant to my original message.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mangafranga
    Language is vague, so what? Assuming this is a case of such vagueness, this doesn't show the distinction is not valid. The distinction (between philosophical and mathematical logic) is of great use to me as it comes up a heck of a lot when I am discussing potential honours thesis topics.
    Regardless of the utility of any term in any population, the distinction remains a fairly arbitrary one as disciplines don't come in neat little packages.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mangafranga
    Literally, since as I understand it he will be joining the mathematics department of Melbourne University.
    Wasn't he also in the maths department at UCLA before this?
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  2. #47
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,570
    Quote Originally Posted by Mangafranga
    The point is that the claims that follow are just about your own system. This seems to be salient as what you say about your own system seems to be highly critical of it. Thus one may be reluctant to think that you are in fact talking about your own system of classification. Thus I wished to make clear exactly what you were doing.
    I don't know why you would think that using the phrase "mathematical logician" conversationally on a chess bulletin board would presuppose some jargon usage. Especially when the phrase was contrasted with "philosophical logician" and Russell was given as an example of the latter.

    You simply imposed your own specialist context on my post and then began berating me for inappropriate usage.

    I get it. You like philosophy. Now please just go away.
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  3. #48
    CC International Master
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Bristol
    Posts
    1,977
    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind
    I don't know why you would think that using the phrase "mathematical logician" conversationally on a chess bulletin board would presuppose some jargon usage.
    Because the topic was logic. Thus I assume the terminology of logic is being used. I also assumed you wouldn't pick something that has another meaning in the subject you are talking about.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind
    Especially when the phrase was contrasted with "philosophical logician" and Russell was given as an example of the latter.
    In my experience mathematical logic and philosophical logic are very often given as contrasts. So that you contrasted it with "philosophical logician" gave me reason to associate it with my usage.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind
    You simply imposed your own specialist context on my post and then began berating me for inappropriate usage.
    In post 5 I did flag that I doubted that our dispute had any significant substance. And then from post 15 I tried to get you to clarify your usage.

  4. #49
    CC International Master
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Bristol
    Posts
    1,977
    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind
    Wasn't he also in the maths department at UCLA before this?
    I don't know much about his history, I was just aware of the Melbourne thing from the website of one of the logicians at Melbourne. I do know he won best logic PhD for the year once though!

  5. #50
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,958
    From the now-locked INFORMATION WAR thread:

    Quote Originally Posted by Axiom
    Lord Bertrand Russell [1872~1970] 'The Impact of Science on Society' (Book: 1985) Welsh Philosopher, Logician, Mathematician, Essayist and an advocate for one world government
    "At present the population of the world is increasing ... War so far has had no great effect on this increase ... I do not pretend that birth control is the only way in which population can be kept from increasing. There are others ... If a Black Death could be spread throughout the world once in every generation, survivors could procreate freely without making the world too full ... the state of affairs might be somewhat unpleasant, but what of it? Really high-minded people are indifferent to suffering, especially that of others."
    I have had a tipoff via PM that Russell's remarks above are not so wacky as they might seem - he is simply arguing for people to control their procreative capacities given the unpleasant consequences (as he saw them) of not doing so; his references to a Black Death type disease are sarcastic and not advocative.

    As such the quote lends no support to the NWO conspiracy theory that Axiom quoted it in favour of.

  6. #51
    Account Permanently Banned Axiom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    4,383
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    From the now-locked INFORMATION WAR thread:



    I have had a tipoff via PM that Russell's remarks above are not so wacky as they might seem - he is simply arguing for people to control their procreative capacities given the unpleasant consequences (as he saw them) of not doing so; his references to a Black Death type disease are sarcastic and not advocative.

    As such the quote lends no support to the NWO conspiracy theory that Axiom quoted it in favour of.
    perhaps he makes his well known sentiments transparently clear here ?

    1953 - The Impact of Science on Society by Fabian Socialist Bertrand Russell is published in which he declares: " I think the subject which will be of most importance politically is mass psychology....Various results will soon be arrived at: that the influence of home is obstructive....although this science will be diligently studied, it will be rigidly confined to the governing class. The populace will not be allowed to know how its convictions were generated. When the technique has been perfected, every government that has been in charge of education for a generation will be able to control its subjects securely without the need of armies or policemen....Educational propaganda, with government help, could achieve this result in a generation. There are, however, two powerful forces opposed to such a policy: one is religion; the other is nationalism....A scientific world society cannot be stable unless there is a world government."

    http://www.greaterthings.com/Conspir...NWO_quotes.htm

    http://www.illuminati-news.com/world...-quote-nwo.htm
    Last edited by Axiom; 10-10-2007 at 01:24 PM.

  7. #52
    CC International Master
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Bristol
    Posts
    1,977
    Quote Originally Posted by Axiom
    perhaps he makes his well known sentiments transparently clear here ?
    Sure, his anti-big-powerful-evil-government stance comes across even in that hacked up (we are talking starting on page 40, ending on page 117, and it gets punctuation wrong, e.g. "although this science" should be "Although this science", because it is the start of a sentence, and "A scientific world" is not the start of a sentence) quote.

    So while we are parading Russell's well known political views, here is another (but un-hacked this time) to bolster your case, Axiom.
    One who believes, as I do, that the free intellect is the chief engine of human progress, cannot but be fundamentally opposed to Bolshevism, as much as to the Church of Rome.

    Russell, "The Practice and Theory of Bolshevism"
    I'll even give a link to the book (it is on Project Gutenburg) so people can easily read it in context.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Aus Teams Champs - by calling !!!
    By Basil in forum Australian Chess
    Replies: 233
    Last Post: 15-07-2007, 01:43 AM
  2. Replies: 9
    Last Post: 22-01-2007, 11:55 AM
  3. Sydney grade matches joke
    By Javier Gil in forum Completed Tournaments
    Replies: 250
    Last Post: 11-12-2005, 09:33 PM
  4. Victorian Primary and Secondary School Teams Championships
    By klyall in forum Completed Tournaments
    Replies: 129
    Last Post: 22-09-2005, 09:40 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •