On 12 Sep 2013, at 21:25, John Clark wrote:

On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 11:08 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

> Feyerabend was correct on this (at least).

I ask myself why in the 21'th century would any educated man agree with a certified jackass like Feyerabend who said "the church at the time of Galileo was much more faithful to reason than Galileo himself" and "Its verdict against Galileo was rational and just"? I can only think of 2 explanations for this very odd behavior:

1) The person does not really agree that the church at the time of Galileo was much more faithful to reason than Galileo himself or that Its verdict against Galileo was rational and just. Thus he was only trying to be provocative.

I do not believe the Church being more faithful to reason than Galileo, except, perhaps serendipitously on the fact that Galileo was proposing a theory. Of course even this was not due to faith in reason, and as most probably a trick. That is why I add "serendipitously".

2) The person sincerely believes that the church at the time of Galileo was much more faithful to reason than Galileo himself

... only on that precise point. You are overgeneralzing abusively.

and Its verdict against Galileo was rational. Thus he is just not very bright.

Only on that precise point.

It is not important; just fun.

I am not so appreciative on Feyerabend too, so perhaps he was also just serendipitously correct on this.

I hope #1 is the explanation because as I have said, sincerity is a vastly overrated virtue but intelligence is not.

>> None of Aristotle's ideas about physics were even close to being correct and could have been easily refuted even in his own day, but instead it was held as the gospel truth for almost 2000 years.

> And probably Aristotle might have some responsibility for this. But being refuted is a glory, in science. It means that you have succeeded to be read

People read what pornographers have to say too.

Good for them. But for natural reason that's more easy.

> and have been enough precise to be wrong.

OK good point, I'll give you that.

 > in theology,

To hell with theology!

Which one?

> you are the one still under the influence of Aristotle, which I think was due to a lack of understanding of Plato.

To hell with Aristotle and Plato!

They are at the origin of science. Plato is coherent with mechanism, Aristotle is not. Science has not yet decided. Clues accumulate for Plato, though.

> Plato was more correct with respect to comp

To hell with "comp"!

Then you can say "to hell" with the mind-body problem, and this means only you are not interested in fundamental question. Then you mock those who are interested. You would have mock Gödel, Einstein, basically all those who made genuine contribution in science.

> If the physical universe did not exist there would be no Moon, no Earth, no Sun, no atoms, no John Clark, and well things would be rather different.

Well, things are not different so logically we can only conclude that the physical universe does exist.


Now that we've got that settled let's move on to other more interesting things.

> That is what some materialist, and all physicalist are doing for the notion of "physical universe". They say that we cannot find an explanation of the origin of the physical laws,

Straw man, I don't know anybody who is saying that.

All those who criticize my own work without reading it, or taking a bit of time to understand. basically the numerous physicalist, or even more numerous believer in Aristotle theological dogma (like the existence of a primary matter).

Science, or at least theoretical physics, is all about explaining physical laws in terms of other more general laws. Either this process goes on forever like a infinitely nested Russian doll, or it does not go on forever and come to a end and some things are just fundamental and it is pointless when you reach that level to ask "what is it made of?".

Indeed. But some stop at elementary particles, or strings, or any token that they assume to have an independent physical existence. The platonist explains it through a mathematical relation, without any material "substances"

One of those things must be true, I don't know which one and nobody else does either.

With comp (the idea that we are machine), we can, and actually have to, stop at the universal Turing machine, or equivalent.



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