Science And Math Was: Python's Lisp heritage

[Cameron Laird]

In article <3CC4549E.B63D3E8A at tundraware.com>,
Tim Daneliuk  <tundra at tundraware.com> wrote:
>Cameron Laird wrote:
>
>> I'll say what I think is the same, in somewhat different
>> language:  do not draw conclusions from mathematicians'
>> philosophy.  There's reasonably strong evidence that
			.
			.
			.
>You're right, of course, but I would expand this to include anyone
>of great ability.  Precious few geniuses can ever explain the
>'epistemology of their expertise' be it in mathematics, boat building,
>brick laying, or square dancing.  This is, to me, another reason to
>dismiss the mechanist/meathematical explanations for the human mind and
>spirit.  There is something transcendental about genius that I doubt can
>ever be described in purely mechanical terms...
			.
			.
			.
Oh, absolutely.  Yes:  geniuses and even more
mundane experts in all sorts of fields have
proven to be unreliable guides to their own
success.  Given this general proposition, one
might hope for better from mathematicians for
several reasons--that philosophical precision
*looks* like mathematics, for example--but it
turns out not to be so; mathematicians have no
systematic ability to do ontology that's more
consequential than their boat-building peers.

I'll make it explicit:  I'm not denying the
value of the foundational work of Poincaré,
Brouwer, and so on.  I am only celebrating
them as happy exceptions.
-- 

Cameron Laird <Cameron at Lairds.com>
Business:  http://www.Phaseit.net
Personal:  http://starbase.neosoft.com/~claird/home.html