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
> testable.
> 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
> possible.
> 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
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to