Bruno, I have no argument with you. Let me insert a remark into your text below (in *large font bold italics*) John
On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 11:02 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi John, > > > On 19 Feb 2013, at 23:28, John Mikes wrote: > > Craig, it seems we engaged in a fruitful discussion- thank you. > > I want to reflect to *a few* concepts only from it to clarify MY stance. > First my use of *a 'model'.* There are different models, from the sexy > young females over the math-etc. descriptions of theoretical concepts (some > not so sexy). - What I (after Robert Rosen?) use by this word is an extract > of something, we may not know in toto. Close to an 'Occamized' version, but > "cut" mostly by ignorance of the 'rest of it', not for added clarity. > Applied to whatever we know TODAY about the world. Or: we THINK WE KNOW. > > > > A scientist know nothing. Just nothing, not even his own consciousness. > > In science we have only beliefs, and the best we can hope, is to refute > them, by making them clear enough. > > I insist on this because there is a widespread misconsception in popular > science, but also among many materialist scientists (= many scientists), > that we can know something "scientifically", but that is provably wrong > with comp, and plausiibly wrong with common sense. > > A scientist who make public his knowledge is a pseudo-scientist, or a > pseudo-religious person, or is simply mad. > *Or a Nobel Prize winner.* > > There is always an interrogation mark after any theory. Theories are > beliefs, never public knowledge. Even 1+1=2. > But we can (temporally) agree on some theories. We have to do that to > refute them, and learn. > > Bruno > *(And I wrote: "We THINK we know")* > > > > > * > You mention 'statistical' in connection with adaptation. I deny the > validity of statistics (and so: of probability) because it depends on the > borderlines to observe in "counting" the items. 1000 years ago (or maybe > yesterday) such boderlines were different, consequently different > statistics came up with different chances of occurrence in them (not even > mentioning the indifference of WHEN all those chances may materialize). > * > *"...within a looped continuum of perceived causality..." * > Perceived causality is restricted to the 'model' content, while it may be > open to be entailed by instigators beyond our present knowledge. > Furthermore (in the flimsy concept we have about 'time' I cannot see a > 'loop' - only a propagating curve as everything changes by the time we > think to 'close' the loop (like the path of a planet as the Sun moves). > * > *"...I couldn't agree with you more. That's a big part of what my TOE is > all about http://multisenserealism.com/8-matter-energy/..."* > Your TOE? - MY FOOT. - Agnostically we are so far from even speaking about > * 'everything'* that the consecutively observable levels of gathering > some knowledge (adjusted to our ever evolving mental capabilities into some > personal 'mini-solipsism' - different always for everyone) is a great > pretension of the human conventional sciences. > (Don't take it personally, please). We LIVE and THINK within (my) model. > Whatever is beyond is unknowable. But it affects the model content. > The URL was an enjoyable reading - with Stephen's addition to it. > > Best regards > John Mikes > * > * > * > * > On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 9:47 PM, Craig Weinberg <[email protected]>wrote: > >> I was so impressed with this page >> http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.php#a1 >> >> that I thought it was worth listing a few here: >> >> *MISCONCEPTION: Natural selection involves organisms trying to adapt.* >> >> *MISCONCEPTION: Natural selection acts for the good of the species.* >> >> *MISCONCEPTION: The fittest organisms in a population are those that are >> strongest, healthiest, fastest, and/or largest.* >> >> *MISCONCEPTION: Natural selection is about survival of the very fittest >> individuals in a population.* >> >> *MISCONCEPTION: All traits of organisms are adaptations.* >> >> *MISCONCEPTION: Evolutionary theory implies that life evolved (and >> continues to evolve) randomly, or by chance. >> >> **MISCONCEPTION: Evolution results in progress; organisms are always >> getting better through evolution.* >> >> ** >> >> * >> * >> >> * >> * >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Everything List" group. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> [email protected]. >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >> >> >> > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
