Re: goedel

["Gunnar Tomasson" <gunnar.tomasson@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Re. the following:

> My point is why should we put any import on what you have to say if
> your line of reasoning is internally inconsistent.

Comment:

You should disregard it.

Gunnar


----- Original Message -----
From: "John Vertegaal" <vertegaa@xxxxxxxxx>
To: "POST KEYNESIAN THOUGHT" <pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "Gunnar Tomasson" <gunnar.tomasson@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, October 06, 2002 10:00 PM
Subject: Re: goedel


>
> You wrote:
>
> >John:
> >I don't understand your point.
>
> My point is why should we put any import on what you have to say if
> your line of reasoning is internally inconsistent.
>   You can either accept inductive reasoning as valid, or you can
> reject it; but if you accept it (and to some extent you apparently
> do [*]), you cannot reject someone else's use of it by means of
> deduction from lower level of generality pertaining elements.
> i.e. In this case using Stephen Hawkings' statements about physics
> and your own interpretation of economic ergodicity and econometrics
> to infer that Bill Ryan's assertion confuses Map with Territory.
>
> John V
>
> * "I'm persuaded that our reasoning faculty and associated linear
> thinking plays, as it were, second fiddle to our intuition."
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John Vertegaal" <vertegaa@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: "POST KEYNESIAN THOUGHT" <pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: "Gunnar Tomasson" <gunnar.tomasson@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Sunday, October 06, 2002 2:13 PM
> Subject: Re: goedel
>
>
> >
> > Gunnar:
> > The proof of irrelevance lies in self-contradiction.
> > You try do disprove Bill's perfectly sensible "intuitive"
> > assertion about real world phenomena, with linear reasoning
> > you previously rejected as inferior to intuition.
> >
> > John V
>
>
>