On 02 Oct 2013, at 10:35, Alberto G. Corona wrote:

2013/10/1 Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>

On 30 Sep 2013, at 15:56, Alberto G. Corona wrote:

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.

Good philosophers are scientists (the Greeks, Maudlin, etc.)
Good scientists are philosophers (Einstein, Gödel, etc.)

In my youth, the academical philosophy nearby was Marxist propaganda, and today, my opponents ask philosophers to criticize the work by authority, as they admit not seeing one flaw. This makes me think that philosophy is the place where argument per authority are still tolerated. This means that philosophy is a tool to imitate institutionalized pseudo-religion.

But above the vocabulary, we might try to just understand each others. Personally, I see science as the perpetual fight against prejudices and any form of certainties. Science is just the attitude of being able to doubt and change their mind, and that spirit can be applied in any domain.

The problem with the word science is that it is also being contaminated, from outside and from inside of it. in the same way that philosophy was in the past.

It is natural. If you look at charlatans, advertising and different gurus, the world that they use most is "science" and "scientific". But lately sometimes I can not distinguish a scientist in search of fame from a charlatan. And authoritarian arguments or at least abuse of authority are used also in all sciences. There is not such ideal and sane institution of human life that is free of humans. The whitest some institution is, the more it attract power seeking, inmoral and self deceptive people that will try to pervert the rules for his own benefit, and science.

Some academies are just prostituted to rotten (sometime) politics, often just to get enough funding to survive.

Money is not the problem. Black, obscure and grey money is the problem.

These are facts that can be demonstrated with evolutionary game theory!! Even in physical sciences is very hard to get along. Einstein not only was a genius, it was a strongly determined man that wanted to be heard.

After reading Jammer's "Einstein and Religion", I would say he was a rather good theologian, partially heard and understood by some theologian (like Torrance, which, I was glad was aware of the trap of "natural theology"). (Especially that my feeling is that somehow Torrance has been trapped, but then probably no more than Einstein itself.

But Jammer eludes Everett, and even Gödel's solution to GR (the rotating universes, in which time travel is possible). (It is sad a he was rather fair with Everett in his book on the pohilosophy of QM)

I like (in Pale Yourgrau's book on Einstein and Gödel's legacy) when Gödel told Einstein "I don't believe in the natural science". He was more Platonist than I thought. But Gödel's missed Church thesis, and that his theorem might be the biggest chance for mechanist philosophy, and the Pythagorean version of Platonism. (Like me and Judson Webb, and some others (including Hofstadter) defend).

At last I got an answer to a question I asked myself for a very long time: did Einstein understood at least that Gödel's theorem is a chance for a non trivial fundamental realism in mathematics or arithmetics. The answer is "yes", Einstein understood apparently that physics might not be the most fundamental science. But unlike Gödel, he will not conceive that theology might become a science (still less that it *was* a science at the beginning of science in occident).

I recommend :)



Palle Yourgrau:



Many texts in human science can easily be transformed in authentic good pieces of science, just by adding some interrogation marks.

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.

We agree on this.


2013/9/30 Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>

On 29 Sep 2013, at 11:58, Alberto G. Corona wrote:


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