Re: From nominalism to Scientifc Materialism Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.
On 06 Jan 2013, at 20:07, Stephen P. King wrote: On 1/6/2013 6:56 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: A greath truth. Every human knowledge has also social consequiences. When I say A. I don´t only say A is true. I say also that because A is true and you must accept it because a set of my socially reputated fellows of me did something to affirm it, you must believe it, and, more important, I deserve a superior status than you, the reluctant. As a consequence of this fact o human nature (which has a root in natural selection). every corpus of accepted knowledge is associated from the beginning to a chiurch of guardians of ortodoxy. No matter the intentions or the objectivity or the asepsy of the methods of the founders. There is a power to keep, much to gain and loose, and as time goes on, real truth becomes a secondary question. The creatie, syncere founders are substituted by media polemizers and mediocre defenders of the status quio. This power-truth tension in science was biased heavily towards the former when State nationalized science at the end of the XIX century, because science was standardized and homogeneized to the minimum common denominator, chopping any heterodoxy, destroying free enquiry which was vital for the advancement. Now peer reviews are in many sofft disciplines, filters of ortodoxy, not quality controls. As the philosopher of science Feyerabend said, It is necessary a separation of State and science as much as was necessary a separartion of State and church: Because a state with a unique church of science is a danger for freedom, and because a science dominated by the state is a danger for any science. The standardization of science towards materiamism was a logical consequence of the a philosophical stance of protestantism: the Nominalism, that rejected the greek philosophical legacy and separated dratically the revelated knowledge of the Bible form the knowledge of the things of the world without the bridge of greek philosophy. Mind-soul and matter became two separate realms. Common sense or the Nous were not a matter of science and reason, like in the greek philosophy (what is reasonable included what makes common sense, just like it is now in common parlancy), but a matter of the individual spirit under the firm umbrela of the biblical revelation. The problem is that this umbrela progressively dissapeared, and with it, common sense. That gave a nihilistic relativism as a consequience. With the exception of USA, where common sense is still supported by the faith. The other cause were the wars of religion among christian denominations, that endend up in a agreement of separation between church and state, where any conflictive view was relegated to religion as faith, and only the minimum common denominator was admitted as a foundation for politics, This MCD was a form of political religion. This political religion was teist at the beginning (As is not in USA) laater deist and now is materialist, following a path of progressive reduction to accomodate the progressive secularization (which indeed was a logical consequence of the nominalism and the proliferation of faiths that the reform gave birth). In later stages, the political religion has dropped the country history, and even reversed it, and, following its inexorable logic, try to destroy national identity of each individual european country, in the effort to accomodate the incoming inmigration worldviews. This is in part, no matter how shockig is, the logical evolution of the agreement that ended the religious wars of the XVI century. In the teistic and deistic stages the State made use of the transcendence in one form or another for his legitimacy, since the divine has a plan, and people belive in the divine, the legitimacy of the state, in the hearths fo the people, becomes real when the nation-state is inserted in this divine plan. When, to accomodate the materialistic sects, marxists among them, the state took over Science to legitimate itself, because the State no longer had the transcendence as an option to suppor his legitimacy. the legitimacy of the state was supported by a materialistic sciece, subsidized, controlled and depurated from any heterodoxy. So there is the current science, an image of the state political religion, Multicultural, relativistic and materialist. Hi! Excellent post! OK. Bruno 2013/1/4 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net On 1/4/2013 9:54 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King very few scientists Sheldrake has done many successful experiments to empirically prove what he claims. The results are in his books. Some have been published in New Scientist. See http://www.sheldrake.org/Research/overview/ A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather
From nominalism to Scientifc Materialism Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.
A greath truth. Every human knowledge has also social consequiences. When I say A. I don´t only say A is true. I say also that because A is true and you must accept it because a set of my socially reputated fellows of me did something to affirm it, you must believe it, and, more important, I deserve a superior status than you, the reluctant. As a consequence of this fact o human nature (which has a root in natural selection). every corpus of accepted knowledge is associated from the beginning to a chiurch of guardians of ortodoxy. No matter the intentions or the objectivity or the asepsy of the methods of the founders. There is a power to keep, much to gain and loose, and as time goes on, real truth becomes a secondary question. The creatie, syncere founders are substituted by media polemizers and mediocre defenders of the status quio. This power-truth tension in science was biased heavily towards the former when State nationalized science at the end of the XIX century, because science was standardized and homogeneized to the minimum common denominator, chopping any heterodoxy, destroying free enquiry which was vital for the advancement. Now peer reviews are in many sofft disciplines, filters of ortodoxy, not quality controls. As the philosopher of science Feyerabend said, It is necessary a separation of State and science as much as was necessary a separartion of State and church: Because a state with a unique church of science is a danger for freedom, and because a science dominated by the state is a danger for any science. The standardization of science towards materiamism was a logical consequence of the a philosophical stance of protestantism: the Nominalism, that rejected the greek philosophical legacy and separated dratically the revelated knowledge of the Bible form the knowledge of the things of the world without the bridge of greek philosophy. Mind-soul and matter became two separate realms. Common sense or the Nous were not a matter of science and reason, like in the greek philosophy (what is reasonable included what makes common sense, just like it is now in common parlancy), but a matter of the individual spirit under the firm umbrela of the biblical revelation. The problem is that this umbrela progressively dissapeared, and with it, common sense. That gave a nihilistic relativism as a consequience. With the exception of USA, where common sense is still supported by the faith. The other cause were the wars of religion among christian denominations, that endend up in a agreement of separation between church and state, where any conflictive view was relegated to religion as faith, and only the minimum common denominator was admitted as a foundation for politics, This MCD was a form of political religion. This political religion was teist at the beginning (As is not in USA) laater deist and now is materialist, following a path of progressive reduction to accomodate the progressive secularization (which indeed was a logical consequence of the nominalism and the proliferation of faiths that the reform gave birth). In later stages, the political religion has dropped the country history, and even reversed it, and, following its inexorable logic, try to destroy national identity of each individual european country, in the effort to accomodate the incoming inmigration worldviews. This is in part, no matter how shockig is, the logical evolution of the agreement that ended the religious wars of the XVI century. In the teistic and deistic stages the State made use of the transcendence in one form or another for his legitimacy, since the divine has a plan, and people belive in the divine, the legitimacy of the state, in the hearths fo the people, becomes real when the nation-state is inserted in this divine plan. When, to accomodate the materialistic sects, marxists among them, the state took over Science to legitimate itself, because the State no longer had the transcendence as an option to suppor his legitimacy. the legitimacy of the state was supported by a materialistic sciece, subsidized, controlled and depurated from any heterodoxy. So there is the current science, an image of the state political religion, Multicultural, relativistic and materialist. 2013/1/4 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net On 1/4/2013 9:54 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King very few scientists Sheldrake has done many successful experiments to empirically prove what he claims. The results are in his books. Some have been published in New Scientist. See http://www.sheldrake.org/Research/overview/ *A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Light, but rather because its opponents eventually diehttp://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Death, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. Max Planck.* -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the
Re: From nominalism to Scientifc Materialism Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.
On 1/6/2013 6:56 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: A greath truth. Every human knowledge has also social consequiences. When I say A. I don´t only say A is true. I say also that because A is true and you must accept it because a set of my socially reputated fellows of me did something to affirm it, you must believe it, and, more important, I deserve a superior status than you, the reluctant. As a consequence of this fact o human nature (which has a root in natural selection). every corpus of accepted knowledge is associated from the beginning to a chiurch of guardians of ortodoxy. No matter the intentions or the objectivity or the asepsy of the methods of the founders. There is a power to keep, much to gain and loose, and as time goes on, real truth becomes a secondary question. The creatie, syncere founders are substituted by media polemizers and mediocre defenders of the status quio. This power-truth tension in science was biased heavily towards the former when State nationalized science at the end of the XIX century, because science was standardized and homogeneized to the minimum common denominator, chopping any heterodoxy, destroying free enquiry which was vital for the advancement. Now peer reviews are in many sofft disciplines, filters of ortodoxy, not quality controls. As the philosopher of science Feyerabend said, It is necessary a separation of State and science as much as was necessary a separartion of State and church: Because a state with a unique church of science is a danger for freedom, and because a science dominated by the state is a danger for any science. The standardization of science towards materiamism was a logical consequence of the a philosophical stance of protestantism: the Nominalism, that rejected the greek philosophical legacy and separated dratically the revelated knowledge of the Bible form the knowledge of the things of the world without the bridge of greek philosophy. Mind-soul and matter became two separate realms. Common sense or the Nous were not a matter of science and reason, like in the greek philosophy (what is reasonable included what makes common sense, just like it is now in common parlancy), but a matter of the individual spirit under the firm umbrela of the biblical revelation. The problem is that this umbrela progressively dissapeared, and with it, common sense. That gave a nihilistic relativism as a consequience. With the exception of USA, where common sense is still supported by the faith. The other cause were the wars of religion among christian denominations, that endend up in a agreement of separation between church and state, where any conflictive view was relegated to religion as faith, and only the minimum common denominator was admitted as a foundation for politics, This MCD was a form of political religion. This political religion was teist at the beginning (As is not in USA) laater deist and now is materialist, following a path of progressive reduction to accomodate the progressive secularization (which indeed was a logical consequence of the nominalism and the proliferation of faiths that the reform gave birth). In later stages, the political religion has dropped the country history, and even reversed it, and, following its inexorable logic, try to destroy national identity of each individual european country, in the effort to accomodate the incoming inmigration worldviews. This is in part, no matter how shockig is, the logical evolution of the agreement that ended the religious wars of the XVI century. In the teistic and deistic stages the State made use of the transcendence in one form or another for his legitimacy, since the divine has a plan, and people belive in the divine, the legitimacy of the state, in the hearths fo the people, becomes real when the nation-state is inserted in this divine plan. When, to accomodate the materialistic sects, marxists among them, the state took over Science to legitimate itself, because the State no longer had the transcendence as an option to suppor his legitimacy. the legitimacy of the state was supported by a materialistic sciece, subsidized, controlled and depurated from any heterodoxy. So there is the current science, an image of the state political religion, Multicultural, relativistic and materialist. Hi! Excellent post! 2013/1/4 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net mailto:stephe...@charter.net On 1/4/2013 9:54 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King very few scientists Sheldrake has done many successful experiments to empirically prove what he claims. The results are in his books. Some have been published in New Scientist. Seehttp://www.sheldrake.org/Research/overview/ *A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see thelight http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Light, but rather because its opponents eventuallydie
