Bede

Goliath,

Nope, I see you are delusional about your subject. How is Mrs Jones at no 32 supposed to proof Godel's theorem to her satisfaction? She can't - only those who have recieved special training are able to do so. The rest of us rely on those people as
authorites. It is the same in science - you believe the earth goes around the sun and yet you have never seen any first hand evidence for this (that is a guess on my part but a very safe one). You believe it on authority and a fond belief you could go and check if you wanted to.

Bringing up religion is a strawman, so I'll ignore those comments and simply advise you to stick to topic. In history we are not expected to believe authorities but always look for their biases. That said, many historians do assume stuff is right when they should be checking hence your misinformation about Alexandria. This is particularly rife in popular history and your comments suggest you have never been exposed to academic work in this subject.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

Goliath

Bede,

How many years have you spent studying Mathematics, Bede? I am a year away from a PhD. So, if you wish to accuse me of being delusional about the subject that I've spent eight years in college studying, then I hope that your credentials are far greater than mine. Unless you know more about Mathematics than I, I will expect an apology for such a rude, insulting remark.

Which theorem? The Incompleteness Theorem? Regardless, the only way that Ms. Jones can learn about the proof of any theorem is by studying enough Mathematics to understand the statement of the theorem and the proof.

Irrelevant. I said that Mathematicians never have to rely on arguments from authority! Please, Bede, pay attention!

Your guess is incorrect. I, as well as many, many, many others, have seen the derivation of Kepler's equations of planetery motion.

How so? I found it to be a valid comparison.

Then why does almost every historical discussion that I've ever seen go along the following lines:

Person A makes claim X.
Person B says that claim X is false because person Y says so.
Person A is then expected to drop claim X.

Sincerely,

Goliath

keyser_soze

Actually, since I have read basically the same argument you used before, I am not shocked to see it. The truth is they ALL probably had a part in it's destruction. Does that mean that the dark ages of church led ignorance did NOT have an impact on learning? No, it does not follow. You are trying to exhonerate one portion of the churches numerous misdeeds, in an attempt to remove the guilt of the rest. It doesn't work that way, unfortunately for theists and others who like to use this defense to relieve their particular belief system of it's skeletons(i.e. the holocaust deniers who like to say that ONLY a few million people died, not the 6 million claimed).

keyser_soze

And why do all that legwork, when you can find your own conclusions, almost verbatim in other sites and resources. Reinventing the wheel is tedious work, to say the least.

Bede

Goliath,

You clearly know a great deal about maths and I am pleased to see it. What you don't see is that maths itself is an authority system. I didn't insult you - the rest of your post made it quite plain I was right in my statement - but I am sorry if you felt offended. You seem to think that only mathematicians count - they can prove what they like and the rest of us just have to believe them. That is the valid comparison in our case where you are calling my expert judgement in my field an opinion while privileging your expert work as somehow not requiring your authority. There is no way Mrs Jones could ever prove the theorum. You seem to think it is not enough for you to say she could if she wanted to and was clever enough. But unless it is practical to do so (and often even when it is) arguments from authority are used. This is a fact of life and I for one don't have a problem with it.

I am sorry your experience of history was so shallow. Perhaps a history degree would do you good after all that maths. I certainly found following a Physics BA with a History MA very worthwhile.

Incidently, if you took all the observations yourself with an instrument you had personally calibrated and then derived the laws (which I have no doubt you could, in theory, do) from the geometrical models produced by this data and then solved the equations (the really easy bit) you would find you had proven a heliocentric model was consistant with your observations. You have not done all this and have consequently relied on authority at some point. Once again, I have no problem with this. Again, it is not enough that the work could in theory be checked - unless you have personally done it you are using authority and unless everyone who believes the theory has personally done it then authority is part of the system.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

keyser_soze

BTW, you still have not provided conclusive evidence to the contrary to support your OPINION that the library was not destroyed by the church or it's followers.....Your supposition is just that, supposition. I am more inclined to follow Gibbons' conclusion.

Bede

Keyser,

flame deleted - liv

The link given above shows clearly that none of the ancient sources mention a library being destroyed by Christians in Alex, including a pagan deeply hostile to Christianity. Gibbon is the first time the idea is mentioned by anyone. No further proof is required.

B

Goliath

Bede,

Flattery will get you nowhere, xian.

Wrong again! The only authority is the proofs themselves, which can be checked.

<flame deleted - liv> You did indeed insult me when you called me delusional about a field that I love to study.

First, you say that you did not insult me, and then you apologize for insulting me? Why should I accept your apology? <flame deleted - liv>

I never claimed this! I'm calling your bluff, Bede! In your next reply, either point out where I said this, or retract your claim!!!

First of all, it's theorem.

Secondly, yes there is a way: the same way that anyone else understands the proof of a theorem, by studying.

Thirdly, I only claimed that Mathematicians do not rely on arguments from authority when it comes to their research. Since "Ms. Jones" is not a Mathematician, her understanding or lack of understanding of any theorem of Godel is absolutely, completely, and in all other ways irrelevant to the discussion at hand! Stay on topic.

I have never perceived it as such.

Ick. Let me say that again: Ick. I'd rather do menial jobs for the rest of my life than to spend my time in "No, dude! You are, like, so totally wrong because this one dude who wrote a book said so!" kinds of pissing matches.

And since I am capable of doing all of this myself, I need not rely on authority. Thank you for refuting yourself yet again.

Sincerely,

Goliath

f

keyser_soze

You're just sooooo sweet. What's wrong, when somebody doesn't agree with YOUR conclusions, they are being difficult, or daft, or a prat? How very rational of you.

as to gibbon mentioning if first being the only reason it's false...well, I think even you can see the flaw in that argument.

Can you say that you KNOW who burned the library? No...Then you are arguing from false reasoning. Yes, I saw your argument from silence about the existence of the library during the period. You hoping that the library didn't exist in that time so that the obviously oppressive church regime COULDN'T have destroyed it..seems more like an argument from HOPE, than anything else.

Bede

:banghead: