I am not sure that these “dogmas” are not merely working hypotheses that have
served well.
But there is some reason to think scientists (if not science) can be dogmatic.
A colleague and occasional co-author of mine is one of the world’s experts on
Douglas fir. He submitted a grant application n
Peircers,
Here is a passage from Leibniz, one of my favorites,
where he half encrypts half decrypts the whole idea
sparking his discovery of the differential calculus.
I have a vague memory of having once looked on the Latin text,
where the word “big” was “gravis”, meaning “pregnant”, in the
ori
Nothing should be does not quite amount to nothing is. CSP was for the
first, not for the second.
Are there dogmas in science? Could there be? If so, how could one tell?
Kirsti
John F Sowa kirjoitti 1.6.2017 09:34:
On 5/31/2017 10:48 PM, Gary Richmond wrote:
I agree that #3 is not a dogma o
John S, list,
John S wrote: "As Peirce emphasized and nearly all scientists agree, nothing
is a dogma of science." Well, I would certainly agree that nothing *ought *to
be a dogma.
And yet Peirce railed against "the mechanical philosophy," materialism,
necessitarianism (recall his response to Cam
Dear John, list:
I just read the Bohm/Sheldrake conversation. In my opinion, the
conversation is unnecessarily abstruse given that they are talking about
embryonic transformation. Still, they do touch upon interesting gaps in
convergence between philosophy, embryology and physics that I think o
John, list:
Thanks for that informative post.
Just to be clear, you are saying
Hamiltonian:Lagrangian :: local state:global state?
best,
Jerry
On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 2:34 PM, John F Sowa wrote:
> On 6/1/2017 11:23 AM, Jerry LR Chandler wrote:
>
>> If you have watched Sheldrake’s talk, how wo
On 6/1/2017 11:23 AM, Jerry LR Chandler wrote:
If you have watched Sheldrake’s talk, how would you describe
his 10 categories?
I would call his categories hypotheses. But in any case, I found his
"dialogue with David Bohm" much more informative:
http://www.sheldrake.org/files/pdfs/A_New_Scienc
> On May 30, 2017, at 2:49 PM, Helmut Raulien wrote:
>
> I am not happy with tychism: Conservation laws require infinite exactness of
> conservation: Energy or impulse before a reaction must be exactly the same
> before and after a reaction. Though in a very small (quantum) scale it is not
>
Jerry - I did not watch Sheldrake's talk. I do not consider his list
to be 'categories'. I view them either as scientific axioms or
doctrines, understanding those terms to mean a 'statement or
proposition that is understood as 'naturally valid'; understanding
'natural' as 'supported by objective
List, Edwinia
If you have watched Sheldrake’s talk, how would you describe his 10 categories?
Consider and contrast the meanings of the following terms:
dogma
doctrine
concept
idea
conjecture
axiom
postulate
theorem
argument
habit
belief
judgment
conclusion
Which is appropriate?
Was Sheldrake
It is with pleasure that we announce the launch of the first volume of the
book series Logic PhDs (College Publication).
It is the PhD of Haskell Curry (1900-1982), one of the greatest logicians
of the 20th century, co-founder of the Association for Symbolic Logic.
Curry was the last PhD student o
11 matches
Mail list logo
