Re: Re:
the chomsky questions.? any =eadway„
Some efforts, but nothing satisfying.=C2 One problem is a fundamental difference between math and science. =AO When a math problem is posed and solved, it's solved. There=E2 s a proof. There are no proofs in the empirical world. =Just better theories, that could be (and usually are) at least partially w=ong.
I understand, mathematics are the =nique formalism for proofs. . I watch the lack of direct=on and leadership. , as in cognitive theory, with lots of data =and no much beter understanding, I m trying to have you give a new generation directio=s . prize, test. proof. demonstration. etc. as the=evidence of real advance. how is it without your v=leria. must be much different
Mathematicians are lucky. Even =ore so than logicians, who worry about foundations.</=>
As for the sciences, the luckiest is =hysics. If a molecule is too big, or some other system too complex, they handed over to the chemists — who do the same with the biolog=sts — who proceed to the psychological sciences — and then=on to history and literature. And of course depth of explanation is =ecessarily sacrificed along the way as complexity mounts.
There are a few exceptions. Parts of linguistics, for example. =t would be good to widen that bridgehead, but not easy.</=>
Valeria hasn't been able to leave yet. Maybe in a couple of d=ys.
"easy" , is for others =C2 . - glad she hasn't left .1 think =f you two as pluto and its moon
Who's Pluto?