Hi Alberto
First, the experimentation can not be done ever in every science. Not only 
cosmology and meteorology but also in human sciences it is almost impossible to 
perform a controlled experiments. Some economy laws, not to tell in other old 
discipliones like moral sciences and so on, many laws have a time span for 
verification that may range from years to generations, and apply to a great 
number of individuals. Others, like in the case of philosophy, study the world 
of the mind, not the phenomena. Logical positivist would say , and in fact say, 
that they are not sciences. The result is the unlearning of the empirical laws 
learned trough this greatest experiment of all, that is life across 
generations. This vital knowledge configure the common sense, bot innately in 
the form of instinctive intuitions as well as culturally, in the form of 
learned traditions, sometimes a mix of the two. Positivism and its last 
incarnation falsacionism presupposes an unlearning of anything still not 
tested. The consecuences are disastrous policies and ruined individual lifes. 
It is no surprise that this narrow criteria of truth is a sure path for social 
engineering and totalitarianism.
In the other side, as Feyerabend said, there is no such thing as pure 
experimental data. To gather data you need a theory in the first place. there 
are no data devoid of any preconceived theory. That is not a marxist, nor 
relativist interpretantion of science but something simple to understand. That 
is easily verifiable if you think that to construct a  method of measure, you 
often must make use of the very theory that you have to test.  Galileo had the 
experimental data against him, because, nobody detected that earth was moving.  
He had to reinterpret the experimental data, in complicated ways to make it 
credible, while the geocentrism was locally a simpler theory of the terrestrial 
facts, the ones for which me most abundant data were available.
Very nicely put. I agree that what was pernicious about Popper was the attempt 
to demarcate between what was and was not science and to recommend the 
imposition of a single method upon the whole endeavour.
All the best.
Date: Sat, 7 Sep 2013 07:09:54 -0700
From: whatsons...@gmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?




> Free will doesn't seem to mean, in control of events.

Free will doesn't seem to mean anything, not one damn thing;

Free will means that your own will is relatively unopposed. When nothing is 
overtly coercing you 'against your will', then you are free to exercise your 
own will as you wish. In your imagination, your are relatively free to conjure 
up may more dreams and actions than you can ever actualize publicly. Your will 
is therefore more free within yourself than beyond the confines of your body. 
Free will doesn't have to be absolutely free, it just refers to whatever degree 
of freedom we are used to.





-- 

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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.

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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to