[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: 5 more proofs and more
- To: "Sinclair List (E-mail)" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: Re: 5 more proofs and more
- From: "Kyler, Dana" <DKyler@abdick.com>
- Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 13:28:28 -0600
- Delivery-Date: Tue Feb 5 14:28:55 2002
This commentary is not meant to contradict Joe Erkes' comments in any way;
I'm merely approaching the same topic from a different direction.
** Actually your statement doesn't really contradict in any way. Scientists
also base theories and theorem proof's on "known" facts and observations.
For another, many subjects are not describable with neat equations. History
is one of those subjects.
** While history may not be definable with equations, "known" facts do
emerge and as other facts come to light, the "theory" of history is changed
to reflect those changes. Much the same way a physicist changes an equation
when observable and testable facts change or new information comes to light.
After all a theory or historical record is really nothing more than
inferences based on "known" data. And as always the experiment or history is
influenced by the observer or the writer.
Just my two cents worth