Bruno wrote:
>>Here I deeply believed that just teaching logic could help people.
Well I think you are right. Its a discipline.
>>Indeed, once you understandenough logic you understand that even in
>>mathematics, few "text" can have an univocal interpretation and it helps
>>you to be cautious in front of any "literal" interpretation of any text.
yes. I think there are problems of interpretation in all fields of enquiry.
Lets distinguish between 'interpretations' that are handed down, and
accidental interpretations that were wrong, or misleading ala Pythagoras's
definition of a point, which I understand led to stagnation in geometry for
some time. The two are different in the sense that the latter is open to
change when the problem is established and understood.
Futhermore, with regards to formal logic, there is some controversy over how
logical operators should be interpreted I gather. Indeed whilst it is
possible to derive all operators from just one (Sheffer's I think), and thus
reason to think that this operator is fundamental in some way, its
interpretation however is clearly a combination of 'english' operators.
There doesnt appear to be a strict isomorphism between language and logic.
>>Note that before Descartes some other were reasoning nicely to.
Ofcourse. Where there are homosapiens, you will no doubt find decent
reasoning.
>>Note that Descartes miss logic, due to the exaggeration of many
>>"scholastic" logicians, but he is really a good reasoner (which by the way
>>shows we don't need logic to be a good reasoner).
I think Descartes is much maligned actually. Sure, his attempt to rebuild
the world from the cogito fails, but his theology and philosophy really just
form a tiny part of his oevre. His work in analytical geometry is testament
to how good a mathematician he was. His study of algebra and curves has been
of unquestionable use to the world.
>>Actually I don't believe in science at all. I believe just in honest and
>>curious people capable of trying to make clear and sharable their ideas
>>and works.
Knowledge by any means! I think knowledge in science has a pragmatic
definition. Ideally, a theory has authority over its field to the degree to
which it is of use. More predictive theories replace older ones, whether or
not the older ones strictly speaking have been falsified. (Newton vs.
Einstein). I follow the argument Hilary Putnam makes in 'The "Corroboration"
of Theories', that intertheoretic dependency renders falsifiability
impossible for most theories. I certainly agree with Feyerabend, and many
others, that scientists usually dont (and shouldnt) worry about
falsifiability too much. Given they shouldnt, and dont, it becomes somewhat
fustrating to see epirical falsification wielded as some great method other
disciplines ignore. So do scientists very often.
The point is that there isnt a 'unique' method that garauntees futhering
knowledge. There are many ways of understanding, and many ways of enquiring.
How much did relative space/time as concept cost compared to the non
descovery of the Higgs Boson?
Regards Chris.
>From: Bruno Marchal <marchal.domain.name.hidden>
>To: "chris peck" <chris_peck303.domain.name.hidden>
>CC: everything-list.domain.name.hidden
>Subject: Re: Theology (was in-between-times)
>Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2005 12:16:56 +0200
>
>
>Le 04-août-05, à 18:11, chris peck a écrit :
>
>
>>Bruno wrote:
>>
>>>No. But then your definition of theology is perhaps a little bit to much
>>>a contingent matter.
>>>Perhaps the word "theology" has too many connotations.
>>
>>I agree largely.
>>
>>I think the correct distinction to make between what people seem to mean
>>wrt the religion/science dispute is between 'recieved wisdom' and
>>'reasoned wisdom'.
>>
>>Religion and theology begin to encroach on liberty when the wisdom is
>>'recieved'. When things are true 'because that is how it is written'. It
>>leaves little space for question or change.
>
>
>I agree. Thanks for mentioning this important point. Here I deeply believed
>that just teaching logic could help people. Indeed, once you understand
>enough logic you understand that even in mathematics, few "text" can have
>an univocal interpretation and it helps you to be cautious in front of any
>"literal" interpretation of any text.
>
>
>
>>
>>Theology takes on a different character in the hands of a Descartes
>>because he reasons for his ideas. In doing so he opens himself up for
>>criticism and refutation. We can analyse his methodology and deductive
>>accuracy.
>
>
>Absolutely. Note that before Descartes some other were reasoning nicely to.
>I am tring to have a better understanding of the thread Plato, Plotin,
>Proclus and other neo-platonists.
>Note that Descartes miss logic, due to the exaggeration of many
>"scholastic" logicians, but he is really a good reasoner (which by the way
>shows we don't need logic to be a good reasoner).
>
>
>
>>
>>Science can and does adopt sometimes a 'received' methodology. There is a
>>prevailing world view, a chauvanism towards certain methodologies. A bias
>>towards rewarding certain research projects over others. There seems to be
>>little understanding that paradigmatic shifts in science often come from
>>left field. Theories are judged to an extent on how well they fit in to
>>the current model - however many difficulties that model is encountering.
>
>
>Yes.
>
>
>
>>
>>As you point out, many ideas here have mystical consequences really. They
>>are reasoned for however. Whilst life after death is common to many
>>religious and philsophical models, in those presented here we can see how
>>the conclusions are arrived at and why.
>
>
>Exactly. An expression like "quantum immortality" *is* theological. To
>negate this consists in making science not only theological again, but
>dogmatically so!
>
>
>
>>
>>For me thats a critical difference.
>
>
>I rarely share opinions with "post-modernist" and other
>"deconstructivists", but I do share with some of them the idea that the
>frontier between fields are biological-cultural, just locally useful,
>constructions. Actually I don't believe in science at all. I believe just
>in honest and curious people capable of trying to make clear and sharable
>their ideas and works. Some gardiners and parapsychologist(*) can be more
>rigorous than mathematician and physicists. It is really a question of
>attitude.
>
>(*) I am thinking to that chef-d'oeuvre of science: "In search of the
>Light" by Suzanne Blackmore (much more rigorous than her more recent book
>on Memes, actually). The original discovery that lucid dreaming can be
>tested in laboratory (in a third person verifiable way) has been done by a
>parapsychologist (Hearne). The scientific community will gives the credit
>to a neuroscientist and mathematician though, Laberge, when he
>(re)published the results in "scientific" journal.
>Some mathematician acts like Pavlov Dog. They dismiss any text has non
>serious if some words appears in it, like "mind", "quantum" (sic).
>Empirically I have discovered that engineers are most of the time more open
>to serious reasoning on fundamental questions. In science they still exist
>"popes", and truth need to wait they leaves the planet to progress. I am
>not alluding to anything personal here, but what I say is clear from any
>books on the history of sciences.
>
>Bruno
>
>http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>
_________________________________________________________________
Want to block unwanted pop-ups? Download the free MSN Toolbar now!
http://toolbar.msn.co.uk/
Received on Fri Aug 05 2005 - 11:56:07 PDT