Hi Paola, (01)
there are still strong formalist tendencies going on in philosophy,
and I think they are too strong. Logical thinking should indeed be
accommodated, but the role of logic is only instrumental. (02)
... but mathematics has come to be identical with philosophy for
modern thinkers, thought they say that it should be studied for the
sake of other things. Aristotle, Metaphysics, book 1, chapter 9. (03)
At worst, the formalist ideology culminates into desperate attempts to
'appear' as 'scientific', by using the language of mathematics and
physics, even though that what is said with the language is extremely
unimportant. (04)
However, given a _scientific_ theory expressed in natural language, it
should preferably be such that it is possible or even very easy to
formalize it. If a theory is not formalizable by using the very basic
tools such as: (05)
-existential and universal quantors
-monadic and dyadic predicates and variables
-logical AND, OR, NOT, ->, brackets
-partOf/subset and memberOf connectives and collections (06)
then I'd suspect that the theory is some sort of continental crap. By
crap, I don't mean that it is all bad, but that it is written in an
uneconomical/continental way, which means that it could have been
written in a much clearer and easier way. (07)
With a 2 minute look, it is quite clear that the best part of this
could have been written in a lot of shorter and clearer form: (08)
http://avantgardescience.com/images/beginning.pdf (09)
Reading that is like masturbating with a cheese slicer: slightly
amusing, but mostly painful. One has to do extra work in digging out
the 'sense' from that. There are too many loosely (or not at all)
defined terms, and when the beginning is loose, how firm can the rest
be? Also, the writer seems to dig out mysticism out of QM, when QM is
in fact quite simple, at least compared to string theory. (010)
-Avril (011)
Lainaus "Paola Di Maio" <paola.dimaio@xxxxxxxxx>: (012)
> One of the reasons why I have been (trying to) hammer on the chinese logic
> issues
> is because it looks to me that the distinction between the boundary between
> science and pseudoscience, is not always legitimate, often it is arbirtary
> and based on the belief system
> of the beholder
>
>
> Too many scientists and researchers today are still refusing to take ito
> account interdisciplinary
> perspectives and look at the universe as a whole,, and continue to do
> research with world view of amoebas
> (which i am sure its valuable too in its own way)
>
>
> if we want to advance scientific knowledge 'as a whole', we need to stop
> dismissing outright what cannot be translated to
> FOL as quackery,
>
> at least stop hiring and putting in charge of multibillion research
> programmes people who have
> very narrow views of the world
>
> For example, the paper below comes across as possibly 'a bit off the wall'
> in scientific terms (even to me actually)
>
> http://avantgardescience.com/images/beginning.pdf
>
> but from the parts which I managed to read its actually just the result of
> mixing scientific paradigms (which are the result of logical inferences)
> with
> logically nonsensical beliefs and contexts
>
> i just want to say, that the universe cannot be translated to FOL, but maybe
> parts of it can, and thats no longer enough
> to support the advancing of science,
>
> It must have been a similar transition from the middle ages to the
> enlightenment
>
> P
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Paola Di Maio
> **************************************************
> “Logic will get you from A to B. Imagination will take you everywhere.”
> Albert Einstein
> **************************************************
> (013)
--
Always forward towards the supreme maxim of scientific philosophizing (014)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (015)
|