by Plato.
Carrol
- Original Message -
From: Carrol Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, October 13, 2002 7:55 AM
Subject: [PEN-L:31316] Re: Re: What is science
Charles Jannuzi wrote:
The science report
is that sad sick pretense of an exercise in c
Charles Jannuzi wrote:
The science report
is that sad sick pretense of an exercise in c/v
building that pretends we can.
The basis both of SCIENCE (deified -- as at Sceptical Inquiere) and of
SCIENCE (demonized -- as with Carl too many others) -- is the Platonic
argument that a
From: Carrol Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED]
... Both (Carl Sceptical Inquirer) are pitching religous
woo-woo and can't tell us much about the actual world.
Carrol
Woo-woo it may be, but it is of a decidedly irreligious nature. Know then
thyself, presume not God to scan, what? The proper study of
In part Doyle wrote:
We're talking about Neuro-networks not
intuition.
Whatever intuition is
supposed to be in popular imagination it is
pointless to go on about
intuition when we have better ways to talk about
what is going in someone's
mind.
Problem is, we still have no adequate logic
Hanly...
- Original Message -
From: Carrol Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, October 13, 2002 7:55 AM
Subject: [PEN-L:31316] Re: Re: What is science
Charles Jannuzi wrote:
The science report
is that sad sick pretense of an exercise in c/v
building
proposed were
often based on his intuition or the claim that the goddess 'parasakthi'
told him so, in a vision. i hate rehasing this issue, but i have to point
out that scientists will
be quick to point out that intuition is alright in the 'context of
discovery' but what makes science 'science
Title: RE: [PEN-L:31275] Re: RE: what is science?
In reference to my comment on the normal role of intuition (e.g.,
Einstein)
in science, Ian writes:
What's the difference between intuition and guess?
and explains:
It may matter somewhat if we are to discern not only the cognitive
The errors of SCIENCE will never be
corrected by the kind of critique Carl offers because what Carl is
attacking doesn't exist
Carrol
What a relief. Would that were true for everything I attack.
Carl
_
Send and receive
Hope I got the thread title correct.
It was mostly a discussion I didn't participate
in because I've been AWOL for two days.
A few comments though:
Note how Peirce's typology of 'logic' in practice
applies (though I'm discussing them here with
insights from Wittgenstein as well).
Deductive
i have been following the discussion about whether certain
characteristics are intrinsic to science or not. i am curious about what
the participants believe is this thing called science? how do you
delineate it from other activities so as to provide meaning to your
positions on the matter.
Title: RE: [PEN-L:31244] what is science?
Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. -- Richard Feynman.
That doesn't mean that all self-styled (or society-styled) scientists live up to Feynman's definition. No-one's perfect, while some don't understand this view.
BTW, I still want
i wrote:
(yes this is all old hat: if you are too strict in your definition, such
as defining science as a 'method', then it has been demonstrated that
what we accept as science often breaks this 'method' rule. if you make
the definition more general, say a form of discovery or reporting,
Devine, James wrote:
Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. -- Richard Feynman.
That doesn't mean that all self-styled (or society-styled) scientists live
up to Feynman's definition. No-one's perfect, while some don't understand
this view.
i do not understand this view.
Random thoughts on Western science
I have little trouble in respecting the achievements of what we're calling
Western science; however, on an economics list I think that a note of caution
might be in order.
Economists often attempt to piggyback their work on the concept of science --
even
Title: RE: what is science?
Ravi writes: to throw in a bit more into this: some of this suspicion arose from
observing a magician and defender of western science (and i agree with
jim's use of the quoted prefix 'western'), named 'the amazing randi',
carry out some tricks at bell
When we talk about science, we frequently talk about two different kinds of
order without adequately distinguishing between them. One kind of order has
to do with laws of causality, the other has to do with conscious intent.
If one lives at the edge of a cliff, it is consistent with the laws of
Tom Walker wrote:
When we talk about science, we frequently talk about two different kinds of
order without adequately distinguishing between them. One kind of order has
to do with laws of causality, the other has to do with conscious intent.
If one lives at the edge of a cliff, it is consistent
From: Devine, James [EMAIL PROTECTED]
BTW, I still want to know what the alternative is to scientific
(logical-empirical) thinking.
I'd say intuition, but that's only a hunch :)
Carl
_
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger:
Title: RE: [PEN-L:31261] Re: RE: what is science?
said I:
BTW, I still want to know what the alternative is to scientific
(logical-empirical) thinking.
Carl:
I'd say intuition, but that's only a hunch :)
ha!
of course, contrary to scientistic/positivistic propaganda, intuition
Devine, James wrote:
of course, contrary to scientistic/positivistic propaganda, intuition is
part of science. What was Einstein, if not intuitive? (I'm told that his
math wasn't very good.) Scientists use their intuition all the time. But
then the products of intution that can't be validated
Jim Devine wrote,
of course, contrary to scientistic/positivistic propaganda, intuition is
part of science. What was Einstein, if not intuitive? (I'm told that his
math wasn't very good.) Scientists use their intuition all the time. But
then the products of intution that can't be validated
From: ravi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
my own suspicion (which i will try to flesh out if this thread proceeds)
is that what is broadly accepted as science or scientific activity (or
approach), by the high priests and their followers, is indeed inherently
dehumanizing (i think that's carl remick's [sp?]
RE: [PEN-L:31261] Re: RE: what is science?
- Original Message -
From: Devine, James
said I:
BTW, I still want to know what the alternative is to scientific
(logical-empirical) thinking.
Carl:
I'd say intuition, but that's only a hunch :)
ha!
of course, contrary to scientistic
Title: RE: what is science?
In reference to my comment on the normal role of intuition (e.g., Einstein) in science, Ian writes:
What's the difference between intuition and guess?
I'm not sure it matters what the difference is.
What's the difference between intuition and analysis? When
) thinking.
Carl:
> I'd say intuition, but that's only a hunch :)
ha!
of course, contrary to scientistic/positivistic propaganda,
intuition is part of science. What was Einstein, if not intuitive? (I'm
told that his math wasn't very good.) Scientists use their intuition all
the time. Bu
Ian Murray wrote:
What's the difference between intuition and guess? What's the difference
between intuition and analysis?
At least according to Susanne Langer analysis is dependent on intuition.
Her example:
Suppose someone admits that All men are mortal and that Socrates is a
Man, but
RE: what is science?
- Original Message -
From: Devine, James
Hey, you have a different font!
In reference to my comment on the normal role of intuition (e.g., Einstein)
in science, Ian writes:
What's the difference between intuition and guess?
I'm not sure it matters what
Eugene Coyle wrote:
If what can't be validated logically or empirically falls by the
wayside, how/why do we have economics?
In confronting mainstream micro purveyors, anything empirical put
before their noses is dismissed as anecdotal. An intuition that is
validated by unfolding
Title: RE: [PEN-L:31272] Re: RE: Re: RE: what is science?
I wrote:
of course, contrary to scientistic/positivistic propaganda, intuition is
part of science. What was Einstein, if not intuitive? (I'm told that his
math wasn't very good.) Scientists use their intuition all the time
29 matches
Mail list logo
