If we compare the old to the new, what is the most glaringly obvious difference? I'll state it's deciding the new by democratic votes of what is and what is not knowledge__And the old was decided by the true mathematical logics, and this seems to apply to most fields of study. So what's to be done? Do we go with the old academics to find the truth, or do we adapt the old more sound mathematical logics onto the new? I would suggest there's far more valid and even up-to-date information and knowledge in the old, thus it would be a wiser course to use much of the old information and knowledge as a modern foundation, and definitely use the old's method of science, in all cases__Then adapt the new facts and real knowledge truths of, to the old methods and facts. But I warn, deciding what's true of the new, is one massive problem, as it's been so decided by democracy views__lacking mathematical and logical validity__it's quite a treacherous road to hoe...
Just take the two probabilities that presently exist__The sound mathematical probability logic of facts, and the unsound probability theories of mathematics and conflated logics.
.Probability / | \ Probability
...........Logic / | \ Logic
.Academics / | \ Academics
.........Truth / | \ Truth
Knowledge / | \ Knowledge
Democracy / | \ Democracy
_________ rrr
Hope is Hope...
No comments:
Post a Comment