In other, the goal is not to not be wrong but to achieve a definitive positive answer. Of that I have no doubt-it would be impossible for me to refute even if I wanted to. In that case, of course, political theory is entirely superfluous, which is why this is all a waste of time. If our only experience of the world is of an existent reality, such that something uncreated or destroyed is literally unimaginable, the superfluity of religion becomes very evident.
Now maybe we see a revision in the valuation of these ideals, and in both Laughlin and Mandelbrot a movement away from final solutions, formulations and summations.
Do this with every single point on the sphere, each point and its antipodal point meeting each other but meeting no other points. But the only way to determine whether it is simply a theory to fit the facts or whether it is truly generalizable is to test it against unknown facts via prediction.
In that case, of course, political theory is entirely superfluous, which is why this is all a waste of time. Now maybe we see a revision in the valuation of these ideals, and in both Laughlin and Mandelbrot a movement away from final solutions, formulations and summations.
Somehow the fact that he considers envy to be a principal element of human happiness does not place very severe limits on the harmoniousness of individual happiness. Conversely, if a hypotheis is corroborated with a positive answer, the theories behind it stand validated until a hypothesis receives a negative answer.
America is running into the sand. It would seem to me that the branches of physics which are entirely theoretical are for practical purposes basically metaphysics.
Zoology and the like I think are, because hypothetical prediction inherently implies classification.
So is the surface of a donut, or a saddle, or an idealized version of the rolling hills of your favorite pastoral scene. It would seem to me that the branches of physics which are entirely theoretical are for practical purposes basically metaphysics. It would seem to me that the branches of physics which are entirely theoretical are for practical purposes basically metaphysics.
On the one hand, he makes interesting and insightful observations on all sorts of phenomena; on the other, he never really synthesizes those observations into a single, coherent argument.
Zoology and the like I think are, because hypothetical prediction inherently implies classification. Do this with every single point on the sphere, each point and its antipodal point meeting each other but meeting no other points. Do this with every single point on the sphere, each point and its antipodal point meeting each other but meeting no other points.
Zoology and the like I think are, because hypothetical prediction inherently implies classification.
It would seem to me that the branches of physics which are entirely theoretical are for practical purposes basically metaphysics. Math is all about abstraction, about generalizing the stuff you can get a sense of to apply to crazy situations about which you otherwise have no insight whatsoever. As for quantum, I avow my profound ignorance of it, so let my opinion be taken in that light. If it were, we could have basically stopped after the Greeks figured out a fair amount of geometry.
Do this with every single point on the sphere, each point and its antipodal point meeting each other but meeting no other points.
If it were, we could have basically stopped after the Greeks figured out a fair amount of geometry. But in reality the sameness of the universe upon which science is predicated is not a a sameness at any particular moment, but rather a sameness of behavior.