We have Geisteswissenschaften and Naturwissenschaften here, both being Wissenschaften of the same historical descent - finding out what IOU. The original M-theory so to speak. :)
2012/11/16 archytas <[email protected]>: > arxiv.org/abs/1210.7439 > Should produce David Deutsch's paper free. > > This is a good example of science philosophy trying to shift thinking > boundaries. There's some physics in it, but probably not enough to > put off a few readers in here. David works on how science may be > restricted by our traditional myths of origin - and that we tend to > posit origins (Big Bang etc.) that may be as unhelpful as god concepts > to science (as opposed to spiritual discussion). > > He also challenges ideas of mathematical a priori - such as Kant's > claim to know the geometry of the universe in such a manner. > > The paper is speculative and I read it because I'm tinkering with > ideas of what economics might be if it was a science. I'm not a > believer in scientific method beyond tropical fish realism. What has > always struck me about economics is that it seems the prime reason for > not doing things because it renders our hopes impossible. A truly > scientific theory seeks to show us what is possible and what won't > work. We make the Higgs' boson (or at least get to see some of its > decay particles) from hydrogen in several kilometres of the LHC at > CERN and shouldn't forget the construction involved. > > Classical constructors in science are catalysts. Biology is full of > them. David says the ultimate constructor may be knowledge and we > might be able to get to a sensible theory of human beings as such. > The 'unit' he is proposing is the task. I guess the problem he > wrestles with is the way we become technicians of dogma. > > I'm fairly sure my own revulsion with economics is based on the Bible > story of kicking over the tables of the money-lenders. David Graeber > has a book out suggesting religion was much more concerned with that > through history and rebellion against debt.. > > Origin in physics is not really Big Bang (or any of the alternatives) > and remains prone to the 'turtle argument' (the world is held up by a > turtle, so what holds up the turtle - another turtle, then another > turtle until, after that, its turtles all the way down). > > -- > > > --
