Talk:Ignoramus et ignorabimus

origin of Hilberts position
"In mathematics there is no ignorabimus." D. Hilbert, 'Mathematical Problems: Lecture Delivered before the International Congress of Mathematicians at Paris in 1900', bulletin of the American Mathematical Society, 8 (1902) p437-79 (445)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.147.233.9 (talk) 19:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Accuracy of Latin translation
My Latin is not very good, but is this "we do not know and will not know" really an accurate translation of "ignoramus et ignorabimus"? Wouldn't a more accurate translation be "unknown and unknowable"? (I mean, is ignoramus a second person verb, or a gerund?) --SJK (talk) 07:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It means something like "we don't know now and we won't know in the future."Lestrade (talk) 14:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)Lestrade

Here are several alternative words to use for the English translation of Hilbert's quote. (However, note that it is very difficult to say the same thing as well (and poetically) in English as is German.)


 * Our motive must be to learn
 * We shall this way greatly achieve — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ab3517 (talk • contribs) 08:40, 2 May 2016 (UTC)


 * We must be motivated to learn
 * We shall this way greatly achieve


 * We must be motivated to learn
 * We shall achieve great things by learning — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ab3517 (talk • contribs) 08:46, 2 May 2016 (UTC)


 * We (as Human beings) are meant to learn and grow
 * We will realize our potential through learning


 * Our purpose must be to learn
 * We shall achieve great things by scholarship


 * Our purpose must be to learn
 * We shall attain


 * Our purpose must be to learn
 * We shall achieve our purpose by learning


 * Our purpose must be to learn
 * We shall attain through study/research

Note that there seems to be a play on words, from Latin to German (as in the translation of the Bible to colloquial speech), Ignora-mus et igno-rabi-mus. In the sense that a "roshi" is a great teacher. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:B17C:4550:CF9:C4B4:A001:2BB7 (talk) 04:59, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

It means, we should not remain ignorant, but should listen to the great teachers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:B17C:4550:CF9:C4B4:A001:2BB7 (talk) 05:02, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Note also, there are several very inspirational quotes attributed to Emil du Bois Reymond. This for example:


 * "Am hellsten leuchet der Menschengeist, wo Glanz der Kunst mit Glanz der Wissenschaft sich eint."


 * "The human mind shines the brightest when the glory of art and science are combined."

Hubris in links
Why is there a link to hubris? If no reason, can it be removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.193.53.23 (talk) 15:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. This assessment, which originated in a comment made by Ernst Haeckel, has been repeated mindlessly ever since. It has to be understood in its historical context (a debate between Haeckel and du Bois-Reymond over who was the greater authority), and it doesn't make any sense: if conceit is expressed by humility, how is humility expressed? By conceit?

Here is Haeckel's original comment: “This seemingly humble but actually presumptuous Ignorabimus is the Ignoratis of the infallible Vatican and of the ‘Black International’ which it heads.” (Haeckel is accusing du Bois-Reymond of siding with the Catholics during the Kulturkampf, which couldn't be less true.)

Source: Ernst Haeckel, Anthropogenie, oder, Entwickelungsgeschichte des Menschen. Gemeinverständliche wissenschaftlich Vorträge über die Grundzüge der menschlichen Keimes- und Stammes-Geschichte (Leipzig: Wilhelm Engelmann, 1874), xiii.

Here are the scholars I've tracked who have parroted Haeckel:

Eduard von Hartmann, Philosophische Fragen der Gegenwart (Leipzig; Berlin: Wilhelm Friedrich, 1885), 42; Ernst Mach, “Über Orientierungsempfindungen. Vortrag, gehalten den 24. Februar 1897 im Wiener Verein zur Verbreitung naturwissenschaftlicher Kenntnisse,” Populär-wissenschaftliche Vorlesungen, 3rd edn. (Leipzig: Barth, 1903), 378-403, on 403; Paul Tillich, Theology of Culture (Oxford; New York: Oxford University, 1968), 171; Wolf Lepenies, Between Literature and Science: The Rise of Sociology, tr. R. J. Hollingdale (Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University; Paris: Éditions de la Maison des sciences de l’homme, 1988), 272; Wolf Lepenies, “Between Social Science and Poetry in Germany,” Poetics Today 9.1 (1988): 117-143, on 120; Keith Mims Anderton, “The Limits of Science: A Social, Political, and Moral Agenda for Epistemology in Nineteenth Century Germany,” Ph.D. diss., Harvard University, 1993, 362.

If you plan to leave this section, at least give Haeckel credit.

—Gabriel Finkelstein — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.51.144.177 (talk) 15:31, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

du Bois-Reymond
Was Hilbert responding to Emil or to his brother Paul du Bois-Reymond? Tkuvho (talk) 16:25, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

He was responding to both. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.51.144.177 (talk) 15:09, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Errors in the article
I'm not too good with Wikipedia, so please consider the following:

1. Emil du Bois-Reymond ended "The Limits of Science" (1872) with the single word "Ignorabimus" (not "Ignoramus et Ignorabimus").

2. He revised his position at the end of "The Seven World Riddles" (1880) with the single word "Dubitemus" (not "Ignoramus et Ignorabimus").

3. This statement in the article is questionable: "However, depending on the interpretation of "ultimate nature" and "origin," it is possible to consider some of these as partially or completely solved. For example, the sensory systems for the traditional senses (sight, hearing, taste, smell, touch) are now mostly understood, including some of the associated neural processing." Du Bois-Reymond was referring to what we would call qualia, and as far as I know, they have not been explained scientifically.

4. While I agree with the article that Gödel refuted Hilbert, mathematicians and philosophers continue to argue over what conclusions can be drawn from Gödel's proof. This should be mentioned if not discussed.

5. Relevant philosophical literature should be mentioned:

McCarty, David C. “Problems and Riddles: Hilbert and the Du Bois-Reymonds.” Synthese 147.1 (October 2005): 63-79.

Tennant, Neil. “Mind, Mathematics and the Ignorabimusstreit.” British Journal for the History of Philosophy 15.4 (November 2007): 745-773.

My own biography of EdBR will be coming out from MIT Press in October 2013.

Thanks.

—Gabriel Finkelstein — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.51.144.177 (talk) 15:50, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

"In 1931, Gödel's incompleteness theorems showed that some mathematical questions cannot be answered in the manner we would usually prefer." I think that to the extent that this claim is not so vague as to lack meaning, it is simply false. No mathematical question is placed beyond knowledge by his showing that the theorems of a particular theory do not exhaust the sentences which are true in every model. He showed that no theory is complete in that sense by establishing the existence of a sentence that was not possessed of a proof from its axioms, nor was its negation, yet one or the other must be satisfied in every model in which the axioms are. This is to say that no particular axiomatic system is complete--and having every question answered in a single theory is a heroic understanding of "in the manner we would usually prefer".

Chaitin showed that the Gödel numbers of the true sentences of arithmetic (and so by the arithmetization of a grand logic such as first-order predicate logic conjoined with ZF, all mathematical truths) are the solutions of a single Diophantine equation of fewer than 20,000 variables). If there is a mathematical question that cannot be answered, much less in any manner we might prefer, it is the question of its coefficients. Lewis Goudy (talk) 09:22, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Extremely serious problem with this article.
The article is SO convinced of its point of view (P.O.V. — forbidden to characterize Wikipedia articles, by the way) that the claim of Emil du Bois-Reymond of "Ignoramus et ignorabimus" that it completely avoids elaborating on the extremely vague and scant information in the introductory section. Instead this article immediately presents Hilbert's words of rebuttal.

This colossally bad article rebuts its subject before it is even clear what subject is being rebutted.

Furthermore, there are some extremely solid philosophical arguments in favor of much of what du Bois-Reymond claimed. But no attempt whatsoever is given to even mention what these might be.

Also, no attempt is even given to support David Hilbert's famous rebuttal, except with the brief quote attributed to him. These words in no way constitute any kind of argument.

As I said, this is a very poor article.Daqu (talk) 04:27, 4 June 2015 (UTC)