Science And Math Was: Python's Lisp heritage

[Tim Daneliuk]

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
> mathematicians are, in the aggregate, unreliable witnesses
> as to the epistemology of their expertise.  They do good
> mathematics; they recognize good mathematics; they hold
> personal beliefs about what good mathematics is; but they
> are FAR more trustworthy about the former (their capacity
> to generate quality output) than the latter (philosophically
> valuable explanations).
> --

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...

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
tundra at tundraware.com