Analysis Quotes - page 30
We have tested, in matters where ordinary intelligence and knowledge are competent to judge, the logical methods and intellectual honesty of the foremost of those who in the name of science eliminate God and degrade man, taking from human life its highest dignity and deepest hope. Now, if in simple matters we find such confusion, such credulity, such violation of every canon of sound reasoning as we have found here, shall we blindly trust in deeper matters - in those matters which always have and always must perplex the intellect of man?
Let us rather, as I said in the beginning, not too much underrate our own powers in what is concerned with common facts and general relations. While we may not be scientists or philosophers we too are men. And as to things which the telescope cannot resolve, nor the microscope reveal, nor the spectrum analysis throw light on, nor the tests of the chemist discover, it is as irrational to accept blindly the dictum of those who say, "Thus saith science!"
Henry George
Joel groaned softly. "I-ah-I don't think I was altogether myself,” he excused.
"Are you ever?” Bertrand countered.
"What?”
"I am always my self, even when my objurgatory circuits are cut in by some frustration-inducing outside event. But you're invariably either drunk or suffering indigestion or still half-asleep or so excited as to be manic or so downcast as to be suicidal or-”
Loftily Joel broke in: "That's part of the marvel and wonder of the subjective human experience, not susceptible machine analysis.” He gulped the last of his brandy and set the glass aside. "And we are a fantastic species really, aren't we? For all our shortcomings! I mean, well-here I am talking to a machine, for pity's sake, a machine, a manufactured article! So cleverly designed, it's impossible to tell that its responses are programmed in, not the result of intelligence.”.
John Brunner
The great masters of modern analysis are Lagrange, Laplace, and Gauss, who were contemporaries. It is interesting to note the marked contrast in their styles. Lagrange is perfect both in form and matter, he is careful to explain his procedure, and though his arguments are general they are easy to follow. Laplace on the other hand explains nothing, is indifferent to style, and, if satisfied that his results are correct, is content to leave them either with no proof or with a faulty one. Gauss is as exact and elegant as Lagrange, but even more difficult to follow than Laplace, for he removes every trace of the analysis by which he reached his results, and studies to give a proof which while rigorous shall be as concise and synthetical as possible.
W. W. Rouse Ball