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 analytical philosophy, and discredited any
other
What drives this change? the same drive than in the ancient times: If A
people defeat B people, then B people agree that A gods is stronger that B
gods. The atomic bomb, the cloning, the magic of the computers are, in the
mind of the stone-age brain of the humans, manifestations of the gods of
I have finished reading the book. As usual, there is no direct answer.
Well,
p. 220 freedom is the creative perception of a new order of necessity.
Evgenii
--
http://blog.rudnyi.ru/tag/david-bohm
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List
Popper deserves street cred, for being a good observer, I will say. Also,
consider that physicists who write for non-physicists, tend to know Popper,
well enough to use hos name or quote him. I was thinking that John Baez, did
use Popper's name, a time or two, when defending his conformist
Obama's pet
John Boehner, you're Obamna's pet,
you whimper and your cowell,
You never show your fangs or bite,
you never bark or growl
So when we're stuck with BoennerCare,
we'll take you to a vet
And have you fixed up properly
to safely be his pet.
- Roger Clough
Dr.
But falsability is not a complete criterion for a scientific theory. It is
not a demarcation that separate science from not science and forces an
artificial reductionism.
First, the experimentation can not be done ever in every science. Not only
cosmology and meteorology but also in human
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
Hi Alberto
First, the experimentation can not be done ever in every science. Not only
cosmology and meteorology but also in human sciences it is almost impossible to
perform a controlled experiments. Some economy laws, not to tell in other old
discipliones like moral sciences and so on, many
Treating this forum as if it were your personal political pulpit; it's like
farting in an elevator!
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Roger Clough
Sent: Saturday, September 07, 2013 7:25 AM
To: - Roger Clough
Subject: Obama's pet
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
Yes, your reading Feyerabend, suggests that the philosopher unintentionally
echos Heisenberg and the uncertainty principle, Schrodinger, and such. I think
that philosophers can help with the process of learning or teaching physical
principles, leaving the bench scientists., free to pursue
Yet, there's lots of scientists in public forums like this, who embrace logical
positivism. I am not saying this is a good thing, but something I have
experienced.
-Original Message-
From: meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sat,
Spudboy,
Feyerabend did not use the Heisenberg principle. It says something more
simple but more fundamental, and because is more fundamental is difficult
to grasp: The facts or the experimental data are interpreted by some
theory that has been assumed previously. Sometimes this theory is the
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. I am not saying this is a good thing, but something I have experienced.
14 matches
Mail list logo
