--- On Mon, 12/14/09, archytas <[email protected]> wrote:
> From: archytas <[email protected]> > Subject: [epistemology 11060] Re: Second Enlightenment (F1,F2) > To: "Epistemology" <[email protected]> > Date: Monday, December 14, 2009, 7:57 AM > Your model of Kant would burn rather > well, as straw does. Good points > amongst the rather apparent distaste for him. =================== G: I said: *** While his ontology lost for us all avail, his method and attitude are excellent example and guidance for those who, in our days, seek to understand the Second Enlightenment. Example of sincerity, rigor and respect for Science. Guidance resumed in "Sapere Aude", "Dare to Reason!". *** That's rather admiration for IMO the greatest philosopher who went astray due to his contemporary context and to his own sincerity. =================== Neil: > Einstein was a > case in point in terms of the wonderful work he did with > others on the > texts and experimental reports of his day (John Stachel's > 'Einstein's > Miraculous Year'). Overall, modern reliableism offers > more, but does > not address social awareness, which is mentioned but not > pursued > above. Defeasible logic also goes some way towards > working with what > is empirically applicable and falsifiable, moveable with > what we come > to know. ================ G: Not bad, but off topic. We are here at F1, F2. Einstein will come with second enlightenment (S1, S2) of which he was the bedrock. Social awareness will come after Ideology. Logical challenge of the second enlightenment pertains to its ontology S2. Thanks for your comments. Georges. ============== > On 13 Dec, 14:21, Georges Metanomski <[email protected]> > wrote: > > NOTE: The present thread results from my discussion > with Antonio. > > Nevertheless, due to its IMO general interest I'll > mail it also > > to lists which don't count Antonio as member as well > as to some individual addresses. > > > > We have agreed with Antonio to structure our issue as > follows > > 1. Fundamental Research, (or in our context Scientific > Revolution) > > 2. Ideology > > 3. Social Awareness > > 4. Establishment > > > > However, a step is clearly missing, to wit the > ontology, without which > > ideology hangs in the air. > > > > Consequently, the structure will look: > > > > X1. Scientific Revolution > > X2. Ontology > > X3. Ideology > > X4. Social awareness > > X5. Establishment > > > > with X=F/S respectively for the first/second > enlightenment. Indeed, > > I propose to start by the first as guidance to the > formulation of > > the second and warning of errors to be avoided. > > > > The present post is limited to the steps F1,F2 of the > first > > enlightenment. > > > > ===== > > F1, the First Scientific Revolution is mainly due to > > -Galileo: Relativity and axiomatic method restricting > science to > > deductive theories inductively verifiable by facts. > > -Descartes: Subjective foundation of cognition and its > fuzziness > > (permanent doubt); algebraizing of geometry which > opened the way > > to calculus and to Newton's Model. > > -Newton: Calculus and Gravity Model. > > > > F1 was based upon the following axioms: > > > > F1A1.Mechanics is covariant among inertial > referentials by Galilean > > Transformation. > > > > F1A2.Space and time are absolute and affine which > leads to translative > > Galilean Transformation and its additivity of speeds. > > > > F1A3.Space has the discrete fabric of "billiard > balls". > > > > F1A4.Action and causality is local, reduced to > neighboring "balls". > > > > We shall see below that F2-ontology took over and > completed those > > axioms, which unfortunately led to paradoxes. However, > F1 already > > leads by itself to two famous "Newton's paradoxes": > > > > NP1.Gravity acts at large distances which contradicts > the > > fabric of "billiard balls" and the principle of local > action. > > > > NP2.SPACE (distance) determines the Gravity Force, > which does > > not act in any way on SPACE, thus contradicting the > principle > > of action/reaction > > > > The paradoxes falsified the axioms of absolute > time-space and of > > the naive, discrete "billiard ball" locality. Yet, > they were not > > dropped, but maintained as dogma, which paved the way > to Aether > > and to ill-founding of logic and mathematics. > > > > Warning for S1-the second scientific revolution: check > if its > > axioms don't lead to falsifying contradictions and > paradoxes. > > > > ===== > > F2. > > Ontology of the first enlightenment was formulated by > Kant. > > Instead of traditional empty speculations he chose the > sincere, > > bona fide attitude of deriving Ontology from the > bedrock premise of > > empirically verifiable science. However, no matter how > rigorous > > the inference, the conclusion is only as good as the > > premise: from paradoxical science Kant rigorously > derived > > a paradoxical ontology. While his ontology lost for us > all avail, > > his method and attitude are excellent example and > guidance for > > those who, in our days, seek to understand the Second > Enlightenment. > > Example of sincerity, rigor and respect for Science. > Guidance > > resumed in "Sapere Aude", "Dare to Reason!". > > > > Brief recall of Kant's axioms: > > > > F2A1: necessary and universal science exists. > (Cartesian fuzziness has > > been skipped due to the general overwhelming > enthusiasm about Newton's > > model). > > > > F2A2: Science is created by inductive inference. > > > > F2A3: Only a priori inference is necessary and > > universal. > > > > F2A4: Induction a priori requires subjective > representations > > a priori (categories). > > > > F2A5: Space and time are subjective categories. > > > > Theorem F2T1, concluded from Axioms: Induction a > priori is > > possible, necessary and universal. > > > > COMMENTS > > > > F2A1: The First Scientific Revolution had culminated > in Newton's > > Model, whose rules and concepts were believed exact, > necessary and universal. This unjustified belief underlay > the F2A1, crucial for > > Kant's system. > > > > F2A2: We nearly agree with it: for us the inductive > inference > > "verifies" rather than "creates" science. > > > > F2A3,F2A4,F2T1: We accept now only induction a > posteriori. > > > > F2A5: Kant's main objective and failure was to create > the > > "Transcendental Logic" with induction a priori in its > center. > > For this purpose F2A5 was a necessary addition to > F2A1. > > > > Kant's "Transcendental Logic" appears to us as a > miscarried "prototype" > > of Propositional Calculus. He failed due to missing > mathematical > > tools, mainly the Boole Algebra and to a basic > confusion: He considered > > only statements, or, as we would say "operands", but > neglected the > > operators. His 'Logic" was in fact just a > classification of statements: > > > > -Statements analytical a priori which we would call > deductive, > > > > -Statements synthetical a posteriori which we would > call inductive, > > > > -Statements synthetical a priori supposed to support > the induction a > > priori, unacceptable for us. > > > > This "logic" did not support in any way the inference, > which is the > > very object and sense of logic. > > > > Warning for S2-the ontology of the second > enlightenment: > > Ontology properly derived from science has itself to > be scientific, > > i.e. complete, axiomatic and falsifiable. It should > not arbitrarily > > reject science's axioms, like Kant rejected the > cartesian fuzziness. > > But it should not take them uncritically for granted > as Kant did with > > the absolute and billiard ball structured SPACE. And, > most important, > > it should ban noumenal phantasms such as Kant's > categories. > > And last but not least, the proper ontology should > found a scientific > > logic - empirically applicable and falsifiable. > > > > Georges. > > -- > > 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. > > > -- 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.
