NP interpretations and "facts"

[John Doe]

There's no glossing-over the differences among
hypothesis attempting to describe and explain
something;of course there are - but the trait of the
"language" used in making the attempt has to be
consistent with the "language" at large ;mathematics,
is NOT merely,"just another language"...this ridiculus
cliche has been promulgated for decades by people who
have probabaly never thought about how they think when
they solve a differential equation; assuming they can
even solve one, and I would wager has been mostly
promulgated by folks who suck at math...the "truth",
or better to call it a truism, is what Feynman said: "
Mathermatics can be more accurately characterized as a
kind of language + reasoning; the certain kind of
reasoning being done while "doing" math is endemic to
the nature of mathematical expression - ordinary
languages do not require that sort of reasoning in
every statement they produce". This crucial difference
is lost on Derrida and from what I can discern, most
Lit - Crit disciples.....

--- jbor at bigpond.com wrote:

> On 09/10/2005 John Doe wrote:
> 
> > Wellllllllllllll....kinda sorta yeah...but the
> problem
> > is, the range of interpretations that are
> > "meaningfull" in a certain case can be great or
> very
> > limited;and that basic diference matters a lot -
> it's
> > one thing to interpret the meaning of a sarcastic
> > remark, or a passage from Gilgamesh, it's quite
> > another to Interpret the observation that EVERY
> SINGLE
> > TIME anyone, anywhere, throws a stone up in the
> air
> > within a uniform terrestrial level gravitational
> > field, it ALWAYS comes down...
> 
> The same type of observation can be made about
> scientific hypotheses. 
> There is enormous variation from one to another
> (e.g. the Big Bang 
> theory). The way the variation is glossed over is a
> product of the 
> language and rhetoric of "Science" (e.g. the
> "falsifiable hypothesis" 
> conceit), not of any equivalency in terms of the
> hypothesis's "fact" or 
> "truth" status vis à vis the observable universe.
> 
> best
> 
> >>
> >> There are no facts, only interpretation.
> >>
> >> --Neitzsche
> 
> > very intelligent people
> > like Derrida who nonetheless have NO feel or
> ability
> > in physics think it's fine and dandy to treat such
> > evaluations from observation as just more "text" -
> > oh,- excuse me; I meant "Text" - and thousands of
> > humanities people who simply CAN'T admit they have
> no
> > clue and should not make pronouncements on such
> > things, go right along with him...I can't
> understand
> > such over the top egotism; but I do understand the
> > easy smugness it must bring to Derrida worshippers
> to
> > be able to relegate all science to the "domain of
> > language" and/ or "textuality", ....I have met
> Derrida
> > in person twice,and listened to him field
> questions
> > from the audience, and this guy is a twit; he does
> the
> > most obvious form of evasion : " oh- no no no no -
> you
> > zimply dohn't uhnderstand my wurk "...apparently,
> his
> > way of "interpreting" legitimate questions from
> bad
> > ones is to not address the question fairly in the
> > first place....I doubt Nietzsche had anything like
> > this in mind when he wrote that, and I wish French
> > Theory Heads would ponder that once in a while...
> 
> 
> 



		
__________________________________ 
Start your day with Yahoo! - Make it your home page! 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs