Not exactly. And that depends on what we call as science. Many called
sciences are pure rubbish, while some other disciplines outside of what is
now called science are much more interesting. I´, in favor of good science
and good philosophy. I consider good whatever knowledge endavour that is
not in the hands of wishful thinking. There are too much disciplines that
call themselves sciences, as well as others outside that are little more
that wishful thinking.
Being a physicist, I consider all the stuff about determinism, QM and so on
extraordinarily interesting, but it has little to say about the concept of
free will that I´m interested in. On the contrary, there are developments
in evolution, evolutionary psychology, category theory, game theory and
computer science that can say things interesting for the problems that
interested to the classical philosophers. All of these disciplines are non
reductionists, and can apply to all the levels of complexity.
2013/9/30 Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>
> On 29 Sep 2013, at 11:58, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
> I knew yesterday that the reason why Percival Lowel (and many others)
>> saw canals -and life- in Mars is because at this time the Panama Canal was
>> being constructed, and this novelty captivated the imagination of the
>> people. everithing had a solution with a canal. And everything could be
>> solved and explained with mechanics and electricity, the technology that
>> helped to construct the channel. Therefore the Martians was an electric
>> civilization that launched electric discharges.
>> It is necessary to explain what I want to mean?. People throw in novel
>> technologies and theories whatever they have unexplained or unsolved, but
>> also their hopes.
>> But at the end of the day these solutions vomit back what was put in with
>> still new questions. The net effect is the rephrasing of the ancient
>> questions with a new language, passed trough the filter of the solution
>> that dominates the uthopic mind of the people. That language, the one of
>> the particular science that dominates the landscape assures that the
>> ancient questions are reduced to match the particular aspect that can fit
>> in the theory.
>> I personally prefer the original, naked questions as the first ones that
>> though about it, as they appeared in their mind, without the filter of any
> I think that you are just saying that you prefer philosophy than science.
> I have no problem, it is a question of taste.
> In science we prefer precise theories, so that we have the means to
> improve them or to abandon them.
> Of course some scientists sometimes talk like if their theory were true,
> but this means only they do bad philosophy and misunderstand science.
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~**marchal/ <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
> To post to this group, send email to
> Visit this group at
> For more options, visit
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 post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.