On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 04:55:30 GMT, Stephen Montgomery-Smith <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>Gene Ward Smith wrote: >> Kevin Karn wrote: >> >> >>>That's why this debate is so ironic. History has come full circle, and >>>now we are at the point where reality-based people who deny the >>>existence of angels are "cranks". >> >> >> I haven't seen constructivists, etc. called cranks in these >> discussions. However, suggesting >> the continuum hypothesis is like angels dancing on a pin seems to me to >> be backwards--it is the objectors who seem to have some kind of >> philosophical qualm which almost seems to amount to a religious one. >> I'm reminded of Kronecker's remarks about what God did and did not >> create in terms of mathematicals. > >I don't think Aquinas's argument over whether angels can occupy the same >space should be seen as having much to do with religion - rather I see >it as Aristotlean thinking taken to extremes.
This is actually correct.
> The question he poses, >and answers, bears no reality to anything, neither to an atheist nor to >a theist.
However this is incorrect since anyone who uses syllogistic inference for demonstration of truth is employing exactly the same technique.
> Only the most ardent Aristotlean is going to be interested.
The difficulty lies with the technique for demonstrating truth. In actuality everyone in the formal sciences uses the same Aristotelian methodology for the demonstrations of truth. Doesn't matter whether the subject matter is angels or numbers.