Re Paul C's [5589]: > I often say that when you can measure what you > are speaking about and express > it in numbers, you know something about it; but > when you cannot measure it, > when you cannot express it in numbers, your > knowledge is of a meagre and > unsatisfactory kind." (Kelvin) This either represents ignorance on the part of Kelvin or taking a quote by Kelvin about scientific theories out of context by Paul. Is our knowledge about psychology, anthropology, history, etc. of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind? What about our knowledge of cultural studies, the law, literature, and the arts? Yet, how much of our knowledge about these subjects can be expressed in numbers? > One should also bear in mind that the objective > of socialists is not to analyze the world but to > change it. The tasks of analyzing the world and changing it are necessarily linked. btw (relating this issue to the one above): what 'percentage' of our knowledge that comes from an examination of revolutionary history can be expressed through numbers? In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Jun 02 2001 - 00:00:07 EDT