"While it is true that purely mathematical equations generally have only one correct answer, practical real world application always has multiple correct answers. That doesn't mean that every answer is correct, it just means that there there is more than one correct answer" et ff
There is only one mathematics. It's neither pure nor dirty. Equations do not have answers. They are just equations. Questions have abswers, if one can find them One can apply mathematical procedueres to all sorts of life problems and questions. Most of that kind of work falls into engineering. But, engineering is an art (of things that work), not a science, not mathematics. To design, one has to make judgemennts, take risks and make choices. Realiry is neither accurate (better term than "exact") nor precise. Reality is reality. The measurements or descriptions of it may be more or less accurate and more or less precise. (Do you know thw difference between accurate and precise?)
Someone appaqrently asked Einstein a dumb question and his answer to it could not but be contaminated.
Most of the rest of that comment is arrogant and contradictory. Not worth much discussion. As AR, I believe, said, when you run into contradictions, check your assumptions.

I almost didn't give you a point. my feelings are still hurt

Accent consists of cadence (rhythm), inflection (emphasis), and formation (motion of the tongue in the mouth). English cadence can vary to some degree without affecting meaning, but word formation and inflection can not. I've been schooled in Russian, Spanish, and Modern Greek (in which I am proficient), and I am accustomed to dealing with cadence. In these (as in most languages), the position of the emphasis greatly affects meaning. While in English this tendency is less pronounced (pun intended), cadence and emphasis are what turn a statement into a question and vice-versa. Clear enunciation facilitates distinguishing one word from any number of homophones which English is rife with. When one speaks clearly (proper enunciation, emphasis, and cadence), it greatly facilitates understanding by the listener(s). When the speaker uses any kind of slurring, alteration to vowel or consonant pronunciation, or unnatural cadence or rhythm, etc., they are diverging from the accepted and reduce their intelligibility as a result. The musical "My Fair Lady" by Rogers and Hammerstein expounds on this in great detail.

Communication is the responsibility of BOTH parties - not just one. Your comments would place any responsibility to understand on the listener, absolving the speaker from their duty to seek to be understood. It is an absolutely absurd position and I'd strongly suggest revising it.

Further, when I'm paying for a service, guess what? They get to cater to me or I take my business elsewhere. Market fundamentals. Thus my example of the failed Dell call center.

"The primary purpose of language is to enable thinking, not communication."

I challenge you to cite one expert who agrees with you. Thinking can and does exist outside of language. No one thinks in words, we think in concepts and ideas. We use language to express those ideas to others. My wife will simply point to our one-year-old as proof. Does my toddler need language to think? To take that stance is to embrace the absurd and to deny the evidence.

Further, I would point out that were language the basis of thought, there would be no way to translate between languages! Languages CAN be translated however because they are expressions of thought - not the other way around.

Your comments go on to neglect the importance of context. They omit facial expressions. They leave out gestures. There is much, much more to communication than language alone, further emphasizing language as a tool for communication, but not the originator of such.

1. Deception has been observed in dogs and monkeys.
2. There are three functions of language- a) communication, b) problem solving, c) expressing emotion

Take it back to animal calls. (Ravens have 31 separate calls in three dialects.) In order to express an emotive state, an animal must HAVE an emotive state. (Actually, animals do not "have" emotions: they _are_ their emotions.) But the internal experience must come before it can be communicated to others. In humans, we have the free will NOT to communicate our emotive states. We keep our ideas to ourselves. Clever Odysseus the Liar had a secret plan to retake his home from the suitors. Gilgamesh was transparent - but he "made up his mind" to build the city, fight Enkidu and Humbaba, etc., _before_ he acted.

yes, language is a tool for understanding the world as well as a tool for communication. I'm mulling which is primary

The primary purpose of language is to enable thinking, not communication. The claim for communication as the primary is a collectivist fallacy. Alone on his island, Crusoe would need language to think. Socially learned, language is an individual empowerment.

blarman said."I've met more than one where because of their heavy Indian accent I've been forced to say "I'm sorry, but can I talk to your manager. I simply can not understand you."
The problem for you is the rhythm. Indian English is similar is stress-unstress to Italian and Spanish. That YOU cannot understand it is no reflection on them.

I'm sure my fluency in ordering beer saved my life!!!
Regarding beer, I urge everyone to watch the Youtube video, 40 minutes: How Beer Saved The World....

"That wider context actually gives Indian English an edge."

I would come to exactly the opposite conclusion. The fact that Indian English is adopting American English metaphors and words actually speaks against your case! Moreover, my wife (who has a degree in linguistics) said that the actual trend in language is not to confuse things by adding more meanings to words, but exactly the opposite: to narrow accepted word meanings and create new words for specificity. This is entirely rational if one accepts that the fundamental reason for language is to facilitate communication - the exchange and sharing of ideas.

I worked with a lot of Indian English-speaking folks in the tech world for a Fortune 50 company, and I can tell you that their English adapted to American English and their accents grew subdued quickly of necessity. The failed Dell call center (in India) is pretty potent evidence of this. I also know many Oracle DBA's who would rather wait until midnight to talk to a tech in Australia than deal with the 4-to-midnight calls to India (8 to 4 is US).

I am by no means claiming English to be a panacea language - whether it is American, English or otherwise. In reality, English is the least "pure" language on the planet (again according to my wife)! But power comes in use, and in the global society, American English is the language of commerce. Could this change? If India becomes the powerhouse economy of the world, sure.

I think the real reason Indian English will never take over as the English of the World is because of the accent - not the vocabulary. I'm in IT, so I've talked to hundreds of support technicians, and while I haven't met many techs who aren't competent, I've met more than one where because of their heavy Indian accent I've been forced to say "I'm sorry, but can I talk to your manager. I simply can not understand you." I have nothing against them or their language, but when I need to communicate, it is critical for me to be able to understand the person on the other end.

Thanks, KH. About commercials I'm a total cynic. Never view them or ads, either. This one's an especially egregious case of opportunistic emotionalism, dragging patriotic sentiment into commercial manipulation. They're free to present whatever they like, of course, and I'm free to resist their pitch. The people in the commercial were individually very attractive. Clearly they were chosen to appeal to the various ethnic groups they represent. Cute ploy: bring back the great melting pot notion to reduce conflict--if only everyone drank Coke, there could be peace in the world.

For a change of pace, here is a commercial I love. Brilliant concept, audacious execution: http://www.youtube.com/embed/a6W2ZMpsxhg...

A contributor is asked to
' do some serious self-analysis and internal reflection'.
If an argument has to depend on an opponent doing that, no chance. Make your case, rethink your case, it could be you are wrong. If you are getting nowhere, asking for others to accept their sinfulness makes things worse.

As you wish, or 'if you say so...' Sure. but not.

Our politicians have given us another gem in a national policy of multiculturalism in which each ethnic group has more incentive to live in their culture and not be affected by the national identity so they can be Arabian or Mexican but live in Canada and receive all benefits without the usual obligations. Basically, Canada is a bit absurd.

As a Canadian, two languages is the law of the land and yes, it creates all sorts of acrimony, division and huge expense. Politicians went mad when they introduced the two culture philosophy and all labels on everything have to be in French and English. Even is places where no one has spoken one of the official language in decades, all official documents must be both. Labels on products as well. The expense in incalculable. Are we better off for it. I believe not but my kids were all educated both languages.

So A is not A is that what you are saying? So your opinion about AGW (global warming) has nothing to do with reality, science, math? What a bunch of nonsense. Any opinion that believes in redistributing wealth, believes in slavery - that's logic. Political theory is based in reality and logic and the disastrous consequences of ignoring it results in the gulags of Russian, death camps under Mao, and the deaths of a 100 million people because some other people feel that DDT is bad.

Physics is not about an objective reality? There are several answers to problems of how a physical system will behave?

You are confusing solutions to human problems (inventions and art) with reality. A train, plane, horse, walking ,and a car are all solutions of how to travel between Los Angeles and New York. But none of them change the fact that it is about 3900 miles between them.

Geometry was a reference to logic. Logic applies equally to physics and mathematics.

I cannot agree with your random, unsupported assertion that Rand's ideas at a deeper level should be taken with a grain of salt. That would be like saying logic only applies at a certain level or that philosophy of science is irrelevant to metaphysics, ethics, and epidemiology.

Indian English is based heavily and directly on British English, as are the Englishes of Canada, Australia, and South Africa. American English carries a lot of weight. As I noted on my blog about this, in an article from India you will find both UK and US idioms sometimes competing in the same article: honor versus honour; lorry versus truck; etc. That wider context actually gives Indian English an edge. To that, you must add the 1.25 million LEGAL Indian immigrants to the USA, among whom are engineers (of course) but also entrepreneurs.

We live in a global society. Earth is one planet. Whatever America was has been absorbed and transmogrified both internally and externally. It is why India is changing to a market economy. The forces of globalist capitalism are very powerful, and for that we should celebrate.

If you doubt that, read Ayn Rand's essay on "Balkanization."
See here: "Global Balkanization" By Ayn Rand. A probing examination of the rise of modern tribalism in the West. It identifies the irrationalism from which the anti-concept “ethnicity” springs. http://aynrandlexicon.com/ayn-rand-works...
(That must include Americanist tribalism, as well, the American "ethnicity" that is promoted by conservatives.)

Ayn Rand wrote:"What are the nature and the causes of modern tribalism? Philosophically, tribalism is the product of irrationalism and collectivism. It is a logical consequence of modern philosophy. If men accept the notion that reason is not valid, what is to guide them and how are they to live?

"Obviously, they will seek to join some group—any group—which claims the ability to lead them and to provide some sort of knowledge acquired by some sort of unspecified means. If men accept the notion that the individual is helpless, intellectually and morally, that he has no mind and no rights, that he is nothing, but the group is all, and his only moral significance lies in selfless service to the group—they will be pulled obediently to join a group. But which group? Well, if you believe that you have no mind and no moral value, you cannot have the confidence to make choices—so the only thing for you to do is to join an unchosen group, the group into which you were born, the group to which you were predestined to belong by the sovereign, omnipotent, omniscient power of your body chemistry."

This, of course, is racism. But if your group is small enough, it will not be called “racism”: it will be called “ethnicity.”

If I refuse to live by or under Islamic law or fight against those who wish to impose it on me and my dear ones, am I a racist, since vast majority of those who try to impose those things on me are of a different race than I am?