Re: Mathematical Logic, Podnieks'page ...

From: CMR <jackogreen.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 14:06:25 -0700

>Science.

>I am in your corner, however I spoke about the "official" terror of science establishment, the editors, tenure-professors, Nobel people, >etc. control freaks. This type of science is perfectly described in today's post of CMR in his points, identifying "reductionist science":

With respect, no it's not "reductionist science". It is in fact and precisely, just science. We don't have to like it or find it particularly useful in determining the true "nature" of nature. But that's what it is. A method with clearly identified acceptable methodology. No more. No less. Qualifying it with adjectives tend to take it out of the realm of a practice and into the morass of a "school", like structuralism, existentialism, Marxism, holism.. (pick your ism).

I in fact tend towards a holistic philosophy of life and world view. But I don't confuse my model with the practice of science. Rigorous scientific investigation of complexity theory, for example, lends support to my model. But it is the very "complexity" you allude to that limits the utility of the scientific method in generating accurate knowledge about the world(s). This is the dim boundary of that ever expanding circle of knowledge Einstein alluded to. Just beyond it lies the fuzzy but oh so satisfying realm of conjecture. Beyond that lies matters of faith.

The End of Science? Hardly, but it does reflect the difficulty we embedded monads (another model of "reality") have in objectifying our world. Fortunately like Democracy, science is significantly less lousy than all the alternative approaches (including any "ism" one might favor) to gaining knowledge of equally embedded systems.

I like, respect and even largely share your apparent philosophy, John. But it ain't science.

Cheers
CMR
<- insert gratuitous quotation that implies my profundity here ->
Received on Tue Jun 29 2004 - 17:10:23 PDT