05.15.08
Posted in Science, Philosophy at 6:45 pm by nemo
Comment on Experimental philosophy:
The question is: do philosophers need to be scientists (specialists) beside being philosophers?
I think the dilemma is false, and a sign of the age of specialization we live in. And of the attitude of reductionist scientists who arrogantly think they have transcended philosophy. There is no absolute division between philosophy and science. The easiest way to consider that is in terms of Kant, whose response to Newtonian physics was to consider the hidden metaphysical premises latent in science itself. And the inability of science to create the correct foundation for a discourse on freedom and ethics in the context of causal science. His resolution of the problem in the framework of transcendental idealism should be understood by all scientists, instead we see this extremely limited attitude of scientism adopting the posture of omniscience with respect to all knowledge. The result is a betrayal of science, what to say of its incomprehension of philosophy.
![[Slashdot]](http://slashdot.org/favicon.ico)
![[Digg]](http://digg.com/favicon.ico)
![[Reddit]](http://reddit.com/favicon.ico)
![[del.icio.us]](http://del.icio.us/favicon.ico)
![[Facebook]](http://www.facebook.com/favicon.ico)
![[Technorati]](http://technorati.com/favicon.ico)
![[Google]](http://www.google.com/favicon.ico)
Permalink
05.10.08
Posted in Science at 4:25 pm by nemo
The Enemies Of Reason
Science has dramatically increased human life expectancy, conquering once-crippling diseases and proving itself under the most rigorous conditions. So why, asks evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, doesn’t it attract more respect?
Permalink
05.09.08
Posted in Science at 2:57 pm by nemo
Where Are They?
Why I hope the search for extraterrestrial life finds nothing.
Permalink
04.16.08
Posted in Science at 3:18 pm by nemo
Flaws of Gravity
Even the idlest stroll through Cambridge, England, calls to mind a pantheon of great scientific minds, but none is greater than Isaac Newton, who revolutionized the world of “natural philosophy” while the rest of England was paralyzed by the plague. Reading an enlightening new biography by Peter Ackroyd, Christopher Hitchens learns that Newton probably didn’t get bonked on the head by an apple—but he did have some pretty funny ideas about sex, gold, and religion.
It is significant that the virtual founding father of physics and the Scientific Revolution stood back with great detachment from his own theory. Some of his views were outlandish, in one way, but a close look shows that Newton was well aware of the limits of physics, and anticipated ever so generally the attempted correction of Kant. Newton lived before the cooptation of physics by scientism
Permalink
Posted in Science at 2:12 pm by nemo
Quantum Quackery
Quantum physics is claimed to support the mystical notion that the mind creates reality. However, an objective reality, with no special role for consciousness, human or cosmic, is consistent with all observations.
Victor J. Stenger
QM has been the object of metaphysical raids by ‘mystics’ who turn out to be ‘idealists’, thus injecting the debate over ‘idealism’ into a physical discourse.
But the range of ‘idealism’ covers something arguably not idealism at all, transcendental idealism, which is neither transcendental (in conventional usage) nor an idealism, and this brand shows rather odd echoes in QM.
Read the rest of this entry »
Permalink
04.01.08
Posted in Science at 1:48 pm by nemo
Universe’s tiniest black hole discovered
Astronomers have identified the smallest known black hole. The puny object weighs only 3.8 times the Sun’s mass and spans just 24 kilometres across
Permalink
03.26.08
Posted in Science at 4:00 pm by nemo
Science—the only way to view reality
Science is the investigation of reality. Reality is, by definition, everything. It is all we can see, all we can measure. It is, for all practical purposes, a god; it is omnipresent, omnipotent. The only tool that successfully measures and describes reality is science (including mathematics).
As an examination of the physical subtrate of ‘reality’, science has prospered. But as a view of the totality we call reality it has shown its limits, and that as earlier as the period of the Enlightenment itself.
Permalink
03.24.08
Posted in Science at 4:39 pm by nemo
I haven’t seen the film yet, but I note the usual concealed anxiety of the Darwin biologists, visible not in their scientific demeanor, but in the egregious and tiresome abuse of the principals.
Here’s another example from, apparently, a scientist: that pompous pimple, David Berlinski…
Berlinski gets the special treatment because he is very threatening to Darwinian pretensions. Destroy the reputation of critics.
Let it be noted insults are not science. In fact, they are a sign that you have no arguments and must substitute vitriol for science.
Permalink
03.23.08
Posted in Science, Critique of Evolutionary Economy, Evolution at 4:43 pm by nemo
From Is Marxism Deterministic?
Popper’s falsificationism has been the object of considerable criticism, and his criticisms of Marxism are a mixture of correcting pointing to flaws and ideological bias, both. And on the subject of Darwinism, the same is true. Popper justly critiqued Darwin’s theory of natural selection on the grounds of falsifiability, despite the problems in that charge, and the fact that he (suspiciously) changed his mind. Whatever the context of that change of mind (I frankly think he back out under duress) his point is roughly speaking correct: Darwinian selectionism persists because it hasn’t been falsified, and in fact it can’t easily be falsified because observing the immense data sets required in deep time is impossible. So Popper was right the first time: for all intents and purposes Darwin’s theory is not falsifiable. In fact, over time that falsification has nearly been achieved, but there is no simple way to finalize the argument.
Meanwhile, Marxist are completely confused on the subject of Darwinism, and the attempts to compare/collate Marx and Darwin simply shows the confusions in Marxist theory which has been misled by the Darwinian illusion over natural selection.
Read the rest of this entry »
Permalink
« Previous entries
