Reductionism means breaking something up into simpler parts to explain it.
What's wrong with that?
On 3/12/07, Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Le 10-mars-07, à 18:42, John M a écrit :
> > I don't deny the usefulness of science (even if it is reductionist) ...
> How could science be reductionist? Science is the art of making
> hypotheses enough clear so as to make them doubtable and eventually
> No scientist will ever say there is a primitive physical universe or an
> ultimate God, or anything like that. All theories are hypothetical,
> including "grandmother's one when asserting that the sun will rise
> tomorrow. The roots of our confidence in such or such theories are
> complex matter.
> Don't confuse science with the human approximation of it. Something
> quite interesting per se, also, but which develops itself.
> Lobian approximations of it are also rich of surprise, about "oneself".
> "Science" or better, the scientific attitude, invites us to listen to
> what the machine can say and dream of, nowadays. How could such an
> invitation be reductionist?
> I would say science is modesty. It is what makes faith necessary and
> With comp, when science or reason grows polynomially (in a trip from G
> to G* for example), then faith "has to" grow super-exponentially.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at