poet colin leslie dean is a threat to world security according to NATOfor underming science
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style:  Open  Point System:  7 Point  
Started:  3/31/2014  Category:  Science  
Updated:  7 years ago  Status:  Post Voting Period  
Viewed:  2,934 times  Debate No:  51333 
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)
Australian leading erotic poet colin leslie dean is a threat to world security,according to NATO
Deans books pointing out science/maths ends in meaninglessness are attacks upon science which NATO regards as a threat to global security NATO finds anti science a threat to world security beware colin leslie dean and his followers http://www.informationclearinghouse.info... The Group's Report identifies six key "challenges", which may often result as potential threats to global security: point 6 says Quote There is also the more philosophic problem of the rise of the irrational ? the discounting of the rational. Though seemingly abstract, this problem is demonstrated in deeply practical ways. [These include] the decline of respect for logical argument and evidence, a drift away from science in a civilization that is deeply technological such works as these the absurdities in psychoanalysis and science that makes psychoanalysis a science gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/.../psychoanalysis/absurd_in_psych.pdf http://www.scribd.com... "Man can not know the universe as his language used to know it only falsifies the universe. This results in the death of man i.e. the death of asserting a privileged observer of the universe." gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/books/philosophy/Decentred1.pdfR06; "MAN IS DECENTRED. BY. COLIN LESLIE DEAN ... falsifies the universe. Thus man looses his ability to be a privileged knower of the universe Godelsincompletenesstheoreminvalidillegitimate http://www.scribd.com... GODEL?S INCOMPLETENESS THEOREM. ENDS IN ABSURDITY OR MEANINGLESSNESS GODEL IS A COMPLETE FAILURE AS HE ENDS IN UTTER MEANINGLESSNESS CASE STUDY IN THE MEANINGLESSNESS OF ALL VIEWS http://www.scribd.com... Mathematics Ends in Meaninglessness ie selfcontradiction http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com... Absurdities or meaninglessness or irrationality is no hindrance [sic] to something being 'true' rationality, or, Freedom from contradiction or paradox is not a necessary an/or sufficient condition for 'truth': mathematics and science examples
His thesis, as I interpret it, is that due to limitations in language, scientific observations cannot be elocuted with complete accuracy, thereby undermining the accuracy of the theories and principles we promulgate. Even if he was accurate in this (which he is not by it's very nature, language evolves in order to properly express abstract ideas and innovations), this does not exactly ADD anything to human scientific or philosophical understanding. In essence, it's merely an appeal to a lingual, rather than general sensory, solipsism; an idea held in some scorn for its status as untestable and unfalsifiable nature. Indeed, even if we accept it as fact (which no rightminded person would), we are left with two options: either we renounce all attempts to understand the universe, or we proceed in our current manner regardless. In this way, Mr. Dean's thesis is both of no value, and as merely a reapplication of solipsism, unoriginal. 

con admits colin leslie dean is a is a threat to world security according to NATO
con says "His thesis, as I interpret it, ...we are left with two options: either we renounce all attempts to understand the universe, ... thank you con for agreeing with the pro position
I did agree. But there is things that I didn't agree with. 'His thesis, as I interpret it, is that due to limitations in language, scientific observations cannot be elocuted with complete accuracy, thereby undermining the accuracy of the theories and principles we promulgate. Even if he was accurate in this (which he is not by it's very nature, language evolves in order to properly express abstract ideas and innovations), this does not exactly ADD anything to human scientific or philosophical understanding. ' 

con says
"I did agree. I thank you con you are the first person on here that has had an honest debate the rest just disparage and bag I put this down toperhaps wrongly because you are a scientist the arts people cannot get any objectivity into their debate their debate are all ad hominums I thank you
Science is my only good subject endless im playing sports. this is his formula. 40. reduAxiom(x) V60; W07;u,v,y,n X04; x. vtype(n,v) W43; vtype(n + 1,u) W43; "free(u,y) W43; isFm(y)W43; x = exists(u,forall(v,equiv(seq(u) a02; paren(seq(v)),y))) I don't understand the problem 

con says
"Science is my only good subject endless im playing sports. yes that explains your objectivity con says "this is his formula. 40. reduAxiom(x) V60; W07;u,v,y,n X04; x. vtype(n,v) W43; vtype(n + 1,u) W43; "free(u,y) W43; isFm(y)W43; x = exists(u,forall(v,equiv(seq(u) a02; paren(seq(v)),y))) I don't understand the problem" reduAxiom( that looks like Russel's axiom of reducibility if it is then Russel dropped it in his 2 ed of PM Godel used it in his incompetness proof as his axiom 1v and in his formular 40 thus introducing a flaw in his proof because the axiom of reduciblity out laws his self referential G statement th making his proof invalid see http://www.scribd.com... IV. Every formula derived from the schema 1. (W07;u)(v W04; (u(v) X01; a)) on substituting for v or u any variables of types n or n + 1 respectively, and for a a formula which does not contain u free. This axiom represents the axiom of reducibility (the axiom of comprehension of set theory). "Godel sentence G is outlawed by the very axiom he uses to prove his theorem ie the axiom of reducibiility thus his proof is invalidand thus godel commits a flaw by useing it to prove his theorem http://www.enotes.com... russells axiom of reducibility was formed such that impredicative statements where banned http://www.scribd.com... but godels uses this AR axiom in his incompleteness proof ie axiom 1v and formular 40 and as godel states he is useing the logic of PM ie AR "P is essentially the system obtained by superimposing on the Peano axioms the logic of PM" ie AR now godel constructs an impredicative statement G which AR was meant to ban The impredicative statement Godel constructs is http://en.wikipedia.org... "the corresponding G"del sentence G asserts: "G cannot be proved to be true within the theory T"" now godels use of AR bans godels G statement thus godel cannot then go on to give a proof by useing a statement his own axiom bans but by doing so he invalidates his whole proof and his proof/logic is flawed"
my Question to you is ' what has he done so wrong' It seems like every scientist is blamed for using things they need. 

con says
my Question to you is ' what has he done so wrong' It seems like every scientist is blamed for using things they need there are 4 points which point to 3 things he has done wrong http://www.scribd.com... 1) Godel TELLS us that he uses the axiom of reducibility from the PM ie 2nd ed Quote http://www.mrob.com... "A. Whitehead and B. Russell, Principia Mathematica, 2nd edition, Cambridge 1925. In particular, we also reckon among the axioms of PM the axiom of infinity (in the form: there exist denumerably many individuals), and the axioms of reducibility and of choice (for all types)" ((K Godel , On formally undecidable propositions of principia mathematica and related systems in The undecidable , M, Davis, Raven Press, 1965, p.5) yet Russel dropped axiom of reducibility from his 2 nd ed of PM 2) "In the Introduction to the second edition of Principia, Russell repudiated Reducibility as 'clearly not the sort of axiom with which we can rest content'"Russells own system with out reducibility was rendered incapable of achieving its own purpose" quote page 14 http://www.helsinki.fi.... "Russell gave up the Axiom of Reducibility in the second edition of Principia (1925)" mathematicians have said ie Ramsey etc that 3) Such an axiom has no place in mathematics, and anything which cannot be proved without using it cannot be regarded as proved at all. This axiom there is no reason to suppose true; and if it were true, this would be a happy accident and not a logical necessity, for it is not a tautology. (THE FOUNDATIONS OF MATHEMATICS* (1925) by F. P. RAMSEY by useing axiom of reducibility in his proof Godel make a logical flaw which invalidates his theorem 4)Godel sentence G is outlawed by the very axiom he uses to prove his theorem ie the axiom of reducibiility thus his proof is invalidand thus godel commits a flaw by useing it to prove his theorem http://www.enotes.com... russells axiom of reducibility was formed such that impredicative statements where banned http://www.scribd.com... but godels uses this AR axiom in his incompleteness proof ie axiom 1v and formular 40 and as godel states he is useing the logic of PM ie AR "P is essentially the system obtained by superimposing on the Peano axioms the logic of PM" ie AR now godel constructs an impredicative statement G which AR was meant to ban The impredicative statement Godel constructs is http://en.wikipedia.org... "the corresponding G"del sentence G asserts: "G cannot be proved to be true within the theory T"" now godels use of AR bans godels G statement thus godel cannot then go on to give a proof by useing a statement his own axiom bans but by doing so he invalidates his whole proof and his proof/logic is flawed we have a dilemma DILEMMA 1) if godel is useing AR then he cannot use G as it is outlawed thus his proof collapses 2) if godel is not useing AR then he is lying when he tells us he is and thus his theorem cannot be about PM and related systems
Why do you keep spacing your stuff out. But that doesn't matter. He tells us he uses this stuff for his experiments. with he does. also g is outlawed so using a different source witch is no problem. like for real. he is using AR its right in one of his formulas. Get me some proof (not the voters) and I will agree even more. 
Post a Comment
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.