I always preferred the north-stand - or at least running down the wing in front of it (we played rugby in winters before global warming and one got better protection from the icy rain and wind on that side of the ground). Allan's call that the soul comes before the universe is a bit like constructor theory but lacks focus in the task or present. It's souls all the way down after this discovery. Infinite regresses in science usually mean one has fouled-up. They may be resolvable by mock-modal-structuralism (seriously - but let's not go there!).
There's a 'form' in Deutsch's argument that reminds me of positivists like Carnap. I have no real arguments against god, only ignorance and superstition. I don't want to be led by the kind of charisma that would have me follow Herman or Barbarosa or prevent a raped woman having an abortion. The task is to retain respect for the deluded believer and her blue and white striped rabbit. The BBC is currently running a series on 'Charismatic Hitler', totally lacking the balls to run something similar on Churchill and British foreign policy's role in creating conditions in Germany for the rise of such a religious- cultist jerk. Science has arguments of this form and considers this essential until experiment and explanation can decide. "Public argument" always evades the necessary data collection. On 17 Nov, 12:07, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > 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). > > >> > -- > > > -- --
