Jesse, Arturo -- Science is necessarily culture-laden in being motivated
and supported by the interests of the culture affording it. The observer
cannot escape itself nor its position in the world of possibility. The
information sought by scientific means is already implicit in the
initiation of
Dear Arturo (and greetings to everybody),
Just a few more reasons to be wary of dismissing concepts and thinking that
science is free of them:
The position you are promoting constitutes a pop view (sometimes called the
received view or naive view) of science, in which empirical items (e.g.,
Caro Bruno,
condivido il Tuo pensiero. Coincide o assomiglia al mio. approccio
onto-epistemo-logico empirico o concreto. Le metafisiche idee della mente
sono necessarie per conoscere la realtà . Tutte le scienze ne fanno uso,
compresa la matematica. Quando la matematica non ce la fa
a farci
Dear Arturo, dear FISers,
On 08 Nov 2017, at 22:11, tozziart...@libero.it wrote:
Dear FISers,
science talks about observables, i.e., quantifiable parameters.
I can't agree more. Science measure numbers, and infer relations among
them. But we know also that untestable ideas can be
Dear Arturo,
I share most of your views below.
However, I would not systematically reject the contributions of
philosophers in information science (and in general), even if some of
them are unreliable.
But what could be a world without philosophers?
And are we ourselves so reliable?
In fact, your
Dear FISers,
science talks about observables, i.e., quantifiable parameters.
Therefore, describing the word "information" in terms of philosophers'
statements, hypothetical useless triads coming from nowhere, the ridicolous
Rupert Sheldrake's account, mind communication, qualitative subjective
