Reductionism means breaking something up into simpler parts to explain it.
What's wrong with that?
On 3/12/07, Bruno Marchal <marchal.domain.name.hidden> wrote:
>
>
> Le 10-mars-07, à 18:42, John M a écrit :
>
> > I don't deny the usefulness of science (even if it is reductionist) ...
>
>
> How could science be reductionist? Science is the art of making
> hypotheses enough clear so as to make them doubtable and eventually
> testable.
>
> No scientist will ever say there is a primitive physical universe or an
> ultimate God, or anything like that. All theories are hypothetical,
> including "grandmother's one when asserting that the sun will rise
> tomorrow. The roots of our confidence in such or such theories are
> complex matter.
>
> Don't confuse science with the human approximation of it. Something
> quite interesting per se, also, but which develops itself.
> Lobian approximations of it are also rich of surprise, about "oneself".
>
> "Science" or better, the scientific attitude, invites us to listen to
> what the machine can say and dream of, nowadays. How could such an
> invitation be reductionist?
>
> I would say science is modesty. It is what makes faith necessary and
> possible.
>
> With comp, when science or reason grows polynomially (in a trip from G
> to G* for example), then faith "has to" grow super-exponentially.
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list.domain.name.hidden
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Sun Mar 11 2007 - 11:56:43 PDT