Le 05-août-05, à 17:50, chris peck a écrit :
> Bruno wrote:
>
> Futhermore, with regards to formal logic, there is some controversy
> over how logical operators should be interpreted I gather.
Yes and no. Because their job consists in making mathematical the
interpretations, and then to study completeness, soundness,
independence of the axioms, etc. Nowadys logic is just a branch of
math. Controversy can appear in apllication (but that's true for any
application of math).
> 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.
That is not a problem at all.
> There doesnt appear to be a strict isomorphism between language and
> logic.
True. But that is not a problem at all. There exists many interesting
and well defined morphisms.
>
> I think Descartes is much maligned actually. Sure, his attempt to
> rebuild the world from the cogito fails,
I am not sure. Surely they are many vagueness ...
> but his theology and philosophy really just form a tiny part of his
> oevre.
I am not sure of that either.
> 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.
Sure. Newton did even acknowledge it in ... the *first* edition of his
main work!
But Descartes has a coherent view of both theology and sciences. He
oversimplified it a little bit too much for pedagoical purposes, I
guess, and also with an eye on the church authority for escaping
"social difficulties". For most of the time he did not succeed and he
runned away.
>
>>> 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.
Mmmh ... yes sure. But to communicate knowledge you need to find
agreement with the other. Logic, math, and modern axiomatics are
excellent non reductive way to attempt such communications.
> How much did relative space/time as concept cost compared to the non
> descovery of the Higgs Boson?
I don't know.
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
Received on Sat Aug 06 2005 - 12:49:27 PDT