falls into the same logical trap all positivists
do.
All the best
--
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 22:58:21 +0200
Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?
From: multiplecit...@gmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 9:18 PM
I´m very sorry John for my though response. But there are a lot of things
to consider in the case and to extract a phrase from its context is not
fair play. Just that.
2013/9/8 Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com
Feyerabend made the best analysis of the endavour of Galileo in his fight
for
On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 5:52 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, September 8, 2013 4:42:02 PM UTC-4, telmo_menezes wrote:
Sent from my iPad
On Sun, Sep 8, 2013 chris peck chris_...@hotmail.com wrote:
Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a
I think that there are real progress that can be even measured in terms of
entropic order. That a man embodies more structure and organization than a
bacteria is objective and measurable, and it is a product of more emergent
levels of evolution. In concrete the human being includes the eucariotic
Hi Alberto,
On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 10:55 AM, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com wrote:
I think that there are real progress that can be even measured in terms of
entropic order. That a man embodies more structure and organization than a
bacteria is objective and measurable, and it is a
PD: Yesterday I saw an advertising in a wall: Metaphysical Tarot, call
(number)
2013/9/9 Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com
John:
I have been working in AI and I can say you that such indetermination in
the concepts is very common when software designers create their semantic
networks,
Telmo:
I don´t know if that process of emergence of levels is the sole effect of a
darwinian process. We can't know it. what is clear is that Darwinism has a
explanation for it. And this applies too to the social level.
http://www.cogsci.msu.edu/DSS/2006-2007/Wilson/Rethinking_July_20.pdf
On 08 Sep 2013, at 22:39, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
Feyerabend made the best analysis of the endavour of Galileo in his
fight for the truth. No other presented the intellectual work of
Galileo in his gigantic intelectual dimension that was, more even
than the case of Einstenin and
for some reason. Obviously there are many
grumpy people in the world so I know its a long shot.
Date: Sun, 8 Sep 2013 16:47:32 -0400
Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?
From: johnkcl...@gmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
On Sun, Sep 8, 2013 at 12:57 PM, spudboy
On 09 Sep 2013, at 11:58, Telmo Menezes wrote:
Hi Alberto,
On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 10:55 AM, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com
wrote:
I think that there are real progress that can be even measured in
terms of
entropic order. That a man embodies more structure and organization
than a
On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 12:34 PM, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com wrote:
Telmo:
I don´t know if that process of emergence of levels is the sole effect of a
darwinian process. We can't know it. what is clear is that Darwinism has a
explanation for it. And this applies too to the social
On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 4:43 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 09 Sep 2013, at 11:58, Telmo Menezes wrote:
Hi Alberto,
On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 10:55 AM, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com
wrote:
I think that there are real progress that can be even measured in terms
of
On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 10:00 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
I do not like very much Feyerabend, and disgaree with its overal
philosophy of science, I do agree with him on Galileo.
OK so let me get this straight, you agree that the church at the time of
Galileo was much more
with greater wit and venom.
But it all flies right over his head. Thats if you assume he isnt just flaming.
All the best.
--- Original Message ---
From: Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com
Sent: 10 September 2013 5:49 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: What gives
On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 8:42 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 10:00 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
I do not like very much Feyerabend, and disgaree with its overal
philosophy of science, I do agree with him on Galileo.
OK so let me get this
.
--- Original Message ---
From: Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com
Sent: 10 September 2013 5:49 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?
On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 8:42 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Sep 9
On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 11:58:37AM +0200, Telmo Menezes wrote:
Hi Alberto,
On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 10:55 AM, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com
wrote:
I think that there are real progress that can be even measured in terms of
entropic order. That a man embodies more structure and
On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 05:26:02PM +0200, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 12:34 PM, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com
wrote:
However a darwinian process is a natural process. In a block universe, there
is no such darwinian process (because there is no process of any kind
On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com wrote:
it seems to me that John has just misunderstood Feyerabend.
It seems to me that the church at the time of Galileo was much more
faithful to reason than Galileo himself leaves little room for
misunderstanding and is as clear as
@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?
Do they deny the existence of
electrons? quarks? as Mach denied atoms.
Brent
On 9/7/2013 3:52 PM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:
Yet, there's lots
with physicalism i mean a form of reductionism that is ideológical instead
of metodological, in the sense that despise anything beyond the laws of
physics. Physicalists despise chemistry and biology not to mention other
disciplines.
An scientist can use reductionism in a metodological way, for
, but something I have
experienced.
-Original Message-
From: meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sat, Sep 7, 2013 4:16 pm
Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?
On 9/7/2013 12:40 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
That's right. I
On Sat, Sep 7, 2013 at 6:48 PM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:
Yes, your reading Feyerabend, suggests that [...]
Speaking of things that give philosophy a bad name consider these words of
wisdom from Feyerabend:
The church at the time of Galileo was much more faithful to reason than
Galileo
.
Mitch
-Original Message-
From: John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sun, Sep 8, 2013 12:58 pm
Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?
On Sat, Sep 7, 2013 at 6:48 PM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:
Yes, your reading
On 07 Sep 2013, at 06:06, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 spudboy...@aol.com wrote:
Falsifying was a term invented by a philosopher. I forget his name.
Understandable, philosophers are not very memorable. And no
philosopher invented falsifiability, some just made a big deal about
On 08 Sep 2013, at 11:14, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
with physicalism i mean a form of reductionism that is ideológical
instead of metodological, in the sense that despise anything beyond
the laws of physics. Physicalists despise chemistry and biology not
to mention other disciplines.
-Original Message-
From: meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sat, Sep 7, 2013 4:16 pm
Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?
On 9/7/2013 12:40 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
That's right. I´m not joking if i say that the thing
On 9/8/2013 2:14 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
with physicalism i mean a form of reductionism that is ideológical instead of
metodological, in the sense that despise anything beyond the laws of physics.
Physicalists despise chemistry and biology not to mention other disciplines.
An scientist
On Sun, Sep 8, 2013 chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com wrote:
* Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical
research program.*
I don't have any problem with Popper's comments here. I see no reason
whatsoever for 'Popper fans or fans of philosophers of science' to be
Feyerabend made the best analysis of the endavour of Galileo in his fight
for the truth. No other presented the intellectual work of Galileo in his
gigantic intelectual dimension that was, more even than the case of
Einstenin and Feyerabend presented it as no one before. Having studied and
put
Sent from my iPad
On 08.09.2013, at 22:28, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Sep 8, 2013 chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com wrote:
Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical
research program.
I don't have any problem with Popper's comments
, Sep 7, 2013 9:51 pm
Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?
Do they deny the existence of electrons? quarks? as Mach denied atoms.
Brent
On 9/7/2013 3:52 PM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:
Yet, there's lots of scientists in public forums like this, who embrace
logical positivism
.
-Original Message-
From: meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sat, Sep 7, 2013 9:51 pm
Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?
Do they deny the existence of electrons? quarks? as Mach denied atoms.
Brent
On 9/7/2013
On Sunday, September 8, 2013 4:42:02 PM UTC-4, telmo_menezes wrote:
Sent from my iPad
On Sun, Sep 8, 2013 chris peck chris_...@hotmail.com javascript:wrote:
* Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical
research program.*
I don't have any problem with
On Sun, Sep 8, 2013 at 1:04 PM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:
by extension, should we not condemm Heisenberg for running the nazis,
A-bomb program.
The fact that Heisenberg ran the Nazi A-bomb program indicates that he was
no expert in the field of ethics, but it in no way diminishes his claim
On Sun, Sep 8, 2013 at 10:10 PM, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.comwrote:
Did you use to post as Major Higgs Boson, or something, on other boards?
Nice name but no. I have made thousands of posts over the years and they
have all been under my real name because I am not ashamed of them. Well
from the fine example you set.
All the best.
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2013 00:18:56 -0400
Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?
From: johnkcl...@gmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
On Sun, Sep 8, 2013 at 10:10 PM, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com wrote:
Did you use to post
seem to mean, in control of events.
-Original Message-
From: Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
To: everything-list
everything-list@googlegroups.**comeverything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Fri, Sep 6, 2013 5:39 pm
Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?
I don't think
: Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
To: everything-list
everything-list@googlegroups.**comeverything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Fri, Sep 6, 2013 5:39 pm
Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?
I don't think that having different concepts or perspectives means that
people don't
from the grand pursuit.
Mitch
-Original Message-
From: John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sat, Sep 7, 2013 12:06 am
Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?
On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 spudboy...@aol.com wrote:
Falsifying
, the unwashed, can derrive some meaning from the
grand pursuit.
Mitch
-Original Message-
From: John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sat, Sep 7, 2013 12:06 am
Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?
On Fri, Sep 6, 2013
Free will doesn't seem to mean, in control of events.
Free will doesn't seem to mean anything, not one damn thing;
Free will means that your own will is relatively unopposed. When nothing is
overtly coercing you 'against your will', then you are free to exercise
your own will as you
and to recommend the
imposition of a single method upon the whole endeavour.
All the best.
Date: Sat, 7 Sep 2013 07:09:54 -0700
From: whatsons...@gmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?
Free will doesn't seem to mean, in control
On 9/7/2013 12:40 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
That's right. I´m not joking if i say that the thing that discredited philosophers
definitively was relativity, quantum mechanics and their realization: the atomic bomb.
That is the event that raised physicalism, a branch of logical positivism and
. Corona agocor...@gmail.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sat, Sep 7, 2013 9:58 am
Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?
But falsability is not a complete criterion for a scientific theory. It is not
a demarcation that separate science from not science
, Sep 7, 2013 4:16 pm
Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?
On 9/7/2013 12:40 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
That's right. I´m not joking if i say that the thing that discredited
philosophers definitively was relativity, quantum mechanics
. Galileo had the experimental data against him, because,
nobody detected that earth was moving.
-Original Message-
From: Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sat, Sep 7, 2013 9:58 am
Subject: Re: What gives philosophers
.
-Original Message-
From: meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sat, Sep 7, 2013 4:16 pm
Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?
On 9/7/2013 12:40 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
That's right. I´m not joking if i say that the thing
I don't think that having different concepts or perspectives means that
people don't know what they are talking about. Free will is a concept which
is so fundamental that it is literally necessary to have free will before
you can ask the question of what it is. I think that it is the claim that
gives philosophers a bad name?
I don't think that having different concepts or perspectives means that
people don't know what they are talking about. Free will is a concept
which is so fundamental that it is literally necessary to have free
will before you can ask the question of what it is. I
On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 spudboy...@aol.com wrote:
Falsifying was a term invented by a philosopher. I forget his name.
Understandable, philosophers are not very memorable. And no philosopher
invented falsifiability, some just made a big deal about something rather
obvious that had already been in
401 - 451 of 451 matches
Mail list logo
