Le 21-mars-07, à 22:18, John Mikes a écrit :

> Academic - tenure - even Nobel type conventional science is 
> rfeductionistic
> in this sense.. I agree: "SCIENCE" should be as you identified it.

Thanks for telling. I thought, a bit naively perhaps, that after 
Descartes and Popper, say, it was part of common knowledge that 
science, properly understood, is an arrow from doubts to ... more and 
more doubts, and cannot, thus, be reductionist.

You know, people like Leibniz and even the young Hilbert thought that a 
machine could exist capable of answering, at least in principle, all 
question about numbers, actually all question about machine as well, 
including herself. Now we know that we can interview machine as 
powerful as we want, as far as they remain self-referentially correct, 
they remain extraordinarily modest. If you ask to such a machine if she 
will ever say a bullshit, well, the young one crash immediately 
(transforming herself into a universal dovetailer btw), the older one 
answer that either they will say a bullshit, or that they ...  might 
say a bullshit(*).


(*) For the modalist: "I will prove a falsity or it is consistent that 
I will prove a falsity"

Bf v DBf    (same as Dt -> ~BDt).

With the older modal notation:

[]f v <>[]f   (same as <>t -> ~[]<>t )

B = [] = Godel purely arithmetical provability predicate (Beweisbar)
D = <> = ~B~= ~[]~
Recall that, as Aristotle already got, ~B = D~ and ~D = B~ (in the 
alethic mode: not necessary p = possible not p ; not possible p = 
necessary not p. See my older modal posts.


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 

Reply via email to