On Mar 19, 2014, at 8:52 PM, Joe Niederberger <email@example.com> wrote:
> I quoted Leibniz (translated), I didn't write about him. What he said in his own words contradicts your imaginary history of ideas. Get a clue.
I was just reading ?Fractions - An Epistemographical View?. To be honest, I don?t even know what that word means, but it?s in the title. But I do understand the work very well and I was going through it and doing my usual ?ok, this is obvious but this over here doesn't work, I have been down that path already, etc. etc.? These papers represent that arduous plodding I was talking about. Deciphering the puzzle. And then I thought about your problem. I remembered the kind of science you like, such as Dehaene?s rat-sense. Where the scientist proves that a rat can tell the difference between more and less and then extrapolates that all the way to telling us how we should teach children mathematics. And the extrapolation itself is so fascinating, why even bother with the middle. So that is actually religion, complete with religious and unreasoned belief, even with a heaven at the end. Maybe you are using a different meaning for the word ?science??