🚀 go-pugleaf

In <1992Sep4.002657.2346@math.ucla.edu> barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman) writes:


>The fact that then mutation would be the dominant factor in this 
>theory makes it a useless theory, but philosophers seem undaunted by such.

      Your whole attack against the vagueness and imprecision of
philosophy is itself a good example of vague and imprecise philosophy.
That's why you're being viewed as shallow. Philosophers are aware of
the need for a continual stepping back on one's own processes of thought,
to make sure they are consistent at different levels. Relatively speaking,
technologists tend to see themselves in paper-cut-out terms, not to be
much aware of themselves, and to take their cues from external authority.
This gives their views a certain black-and-white naivete which makes
them easy to ignore.

>--
>Barry Merriman
>UCLA Dept. of Math
>UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
>barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)


      John E. Snodgrass
      -----------------
      snodgras@crash.cts.com