True, 2 4stand is situated in a different referential system than 2 (-)stand. Wissenschaft's claim of knowledge being able to bring something/someone into being remains undisputed by that.
2012/11/17 archytas <[email protected]>: > The number of social science symposia at which I was exposed to all > that and the verstehen problematic is too high. The radiation left me > wondering on the wuckfittery of not noticing science is socially > constructed in order to discover social science is. It's partly the > old business that intent to dissolve metaphysics is metaphysical. > > On 16 Nov, 20:02, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: >> 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). >> >> > -- > > -- > > > --
