You don't need math for discussing the philosophical implications of a mathematical theory.
You need well defined concepts and valid logical reasoning.
Did Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris need mathematics to explain their theories about religion in their books? No, they used valid logical reasoning in words.
How many mathematical reasoning did Richard Dawkins use in his book 'The Greatest Show on Earth' to proof Darwins' theory of evolution? Zero.
So, it's obviously not true that one can only think logically with mathematical symbols.
Valid logical deductions, using concepts which are well defined (in words) is more preferable then just mathematical equations without any concept in words to explain the equations.
You need well defined concepts and valid logical reasoning.
Did Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris need mathematics to explain their theories about religion in their books? No, they used valid logical reasoning in words.
How many mathematical reasoning did Richard Dawkins use in his book 'The Greatest Show on Earth' to proof Darwins' theory of evolution? Zero.
So, it's obviously not true that one can only think logically with mathematical symbols.
Valid logical deductions, using concepts which are well defined (in words) is more preferable then just mathematical equations without any concept in words to explain the equations.
via International Skeptics Forum http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=313794&goto=newpost
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire