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 everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
