Re: Panu Raatikainen's review of two of Chaitin's books.

From: George Cox (george_coxANTI_at_SPAMbtinternet.com.invalid)
Date: 05/16/04 

Date: Sun, 16 May 2004 16:22:53 +0000 (UTC)

Eray Ozkural exa wrote:
>
> George Cox <george_coxANTI@SPAMbtinternet.com.invalid> wrote in message news:<40A26841.366E58D4@SPAMbtinternet.com.invalid>...
> > Eray Ozkural exa wrote:
> > >
> > > Hello there,
> > >
> > > I have come across this strange review by a certain philosopher, and
> > > mere philosopher I must add, of Chaitin's work:
> > > http://www.ams.org/notices/200109/rev-panu.pdf
> >
> > That he is a philosopher (even a "mere" one) doesn't make him
> > unqualified to review Chaitin's work.
>
> I think it does for the same reason that mere biologists are not
> qualified to review my work in parallel computing,

If a "mere" biologist knew a lot about parallel computing (and your work
in particular) then he would be so qualified.

> for instance... You
> might think that philosophy (of mathematics) is closer to mathematics
> than biology is to computer science, but I think you'd be a little
> misdirected. Wittgenstein is said to have a "philosophy" of
> mathematics, yet his philosophy, in my opinion, is just postmodernist
> gibberish [No, nothing is rule-based, I'm a linguistic rebel, sure I'm
> a language-bot...]. What makes you think Wittgenstein was qualified to
> say anything about mathematics?

I never said he was. But just because you don't like Wittgenstein's
philosophy doesn't mean that Raatikainen is unqualified to write about
Chaitin's work.

>
> It is true that the most important philosophers of mathematics were
> mathematicians, and I will suggest the readership that one who does
> not have sufficiently advanced formal education in mathematics,
> especially in the subjects he wishes to study (be it ZF set theory or
> Kolmogorov complexity!), either by himself or at academy, should
> either stay away from the subject or educate himself in the relevant
> technical matters.
>
> I give great importance to what Godel said about philosophy of
> mathematics not because he did philosophy, but because he did
> philosophy as a mathematician.
>
> Furthermore, I think the review spells of the reviewer's ignorance,

Now you get to the point--if _you_ are qualified to review the review,
then do so without insulting it's author. 

-- 
G.C.
Note ANTI, SPAM and invalid to be removed if you're e-mailing me.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The Reasonable Minority
    ... postdoctoral fellowship in mathematics from the National Science ... philosophy of science at Northwestern University from 1992-1993. ... proceedings do not have well-defined peer review standards" ... ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Panu Raatikainens review of two of Chaitins books.
    ... > unqualified to review Chaitin's work. ... might think that philosophy (of mathematics) is closer to mathematics ... not have sufficiently advanced formal education in mathematics, ...
    (comp.theory)
  • Re: Are recursive functions computable?
    ... Alonzo Church’s JSL Reviews ... Logistic and Philosophy. ... Die Widerspruchsfreiheit der Stufenlogik. ... The Development of Intuitionistic Mathematics. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Jechs Set Theory
    ... learning some mathematics, as the mathematics (during this phase of my ... studies) is of more interest to me than is philosophy of mathematics. ... clear mathematical assertions themselves. ... set theory done by a formalist is ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: The Reasonable Minority
    ... postdoctoral fellowship in mathematics from the National Science ... proceedings do not have well-defined peer review standards" ... ... "arch evolutionary true believers" and when you imagine that the ...
    (talk.origins)