From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Lennart Borgman (gmail)" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.help Subject: Re: Emacs psychiatrist Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2008 14:52:36 +0100 Message-ID: <47E50F24.5040704@gmail.com> References: <47E30C9C.9030305@gmail.com> <8763vgtczh.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> <47E3BD17.9060004@gmail.com> <87k5jw2fng.fsf@localhorst.mine.nu> <47E3ECAB.3020305@gmail.com> <8763ve3myy.fsf@localhorst.mine.nu> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1206193990 13677 80.91.229.12 (22 Mar 2008 13:53:10 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2008 13:53:10 +0000 (UTC) To: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Original-X-From: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Mar 22 14:53:40 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1Jd4AF-0008HD-6p for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sat, 22 Mar 2008 14:53:39 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Jd49e-0001xw-8E for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sat, 22 Mar 2008 09:53:02 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Jd49K-0001xl-OY for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 22 Mar 2008 09:52:42 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Jd49J-0001xN-C6 for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 22 Mar 2008 09:52:42 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Jd49J-0001xK-6Z for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 22 Mar 2008 09:52:41 -0400 Original-Received: from ch-smtp01.sth.basefarm.net ([80.76.149.212]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Jd49I-0003NI-KK for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 22 Mar 2008 09:52:40 -0400 Original-Received: from c83-254-148-228.bredband.comhem.se ([83.254.148.228]:62183 helo=[127.0.0.1]) by ch-smtp01.sth.basefarm.net with esmtp (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from ) id 1Jd49H-0007IU-3H for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 22 Mar 2008 14:52:39 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.9) Gecko/20071031 Thunderbird/2.0.0.9 Mnenhy/0.7.5.666 In-Reply-To: <8763ve3myy.fsf@localhorst.mine.nu> X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 080322-0, 2008-03-22), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-Originating-IP: 83.254.148.228 X-Scan-Result: No virus found in message 1Jd49H-0007IU-3H. X-Scan-Signature: ch-smtp01.sth.basefarm.net 1Jd49H-0007IU-3H 71ded56eb4336a40e2eb7c8c84f6701e X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.6? (barebone, rare!) X-BeenThere: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.help:52633 Archived-At: David Hansen wrote: > "Knowledge" is kind of worthless if you can't prove it wrong or right. > Without falsifiability it's nothing more than a neat idea and no > knowledge at all. And statistics is more or less the only way to deal > with any data, no matter if you observe planets orbiting the sun or far > more complex and weird objects like human beings. Are you sure about what you mean with "knowledge", "prove", "right" and "wrong" here? Do you have some knowledge of that you are alive? Do you have some knowledge of your feelings? If you have some children are you sure of that? Is it a fact, is it knowledge? Even if you would like to reserve "knowledge" for something defined within a "statistical onthology" (which is a strange thing to do for a common word) don't you think other things are worth knowning too? Aren't they important when you try to decide what to do? Don't you think reasoning about this kind of knowledge can be as sharp as reasoning about statistical kind of knowledge?