I do, in some senses, believe we are waiting for 'things to pop up'. Travel in the solar system may be fantastic in engineering terms, yet also reveals how limted we still are against concepton of vastness. Metaphors are subject to manifold interpretation as Carlos points to. Even the most studied research leaves us with approximation in our theories (Ludwig - horrible to read). CERN cranks over in the next few days and will no doubt conclusively prove we need a bigger home for the bouys and girls playing in it.
On 4 Sep, 19:34, Georges Metanomski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- On Thu, 9/4/08, einseele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > From: einseele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Subject: [epistemology 9391] Re: johnreed take 25 - August 17, 2008 > > To: "Epistemology" <[email protected]> > > Date: Thursday, September 4, 2008, 6:50 PM > > > =============== > > > G: > > > I don't know about magic and religion, but science > > does > > > not look into "objects", ignoring this naive > > realism's > > > term, but observes events and coordinates them in > > > abstract maps called models. > > > That deals also with yours below, so I finish here. > > > > Georges. > > > =============== > > > You ignore about the term object. > > And science yes deals with objects. Because after all that > > is just > > matter of the word use > > Computer Science is "object oriented" And that... > > believe me, has > > nothing to do with any naive realism's term. > > ====================== > G: > Let me clarify my point, muddled by the multitude of > homonyms of "object". First, there is "object" of the > observation polarity "subject/object". Science deals of > course with that, it's its main fabric. But we did not > talk about that, but about "real objects - things", like > tree or car. It's Technology that deals with them and > also low level derived sciences like bio-chemistry. > But science opened into the ocean of Newton's allegory, > viz. fundamental physics and astro-physics observes > exclusively events and coordinates them in abstract models > in which the concept of "object-thing" never appears. > > As to "computer science" it's no science at all, but > technology and it is not "object oriented", but has > programming procedures called "languages" crudely misnamed > as "object oriented" instead of "class oriented". > C++ is C with classes. Java is a class structure. > Computer science is my professional competence area. > I taught it at a Uni, I designed some greatest systems > ever and conceived an Artificial Intelligence system > which has been used in the Gemini project (sending the man > to the moon). Believe me, I never noticed any trees, cars > or frogs pop up amidst the computer science. > > Georges. > ======================- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
