Densmore
Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 12:38 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Philosophy vs. science
Nick sez:
Glen,
Sorry if I have been obtuse. It's partly because I can be obtuse and partly
because my means of communication here at the far
Behalf
Of Owen Densmore
Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 12:38 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Philosophy vs. science
Nick sez:
Glen,
Sorry if I have been obtuse. It's partly because I can be obtuse and partly
because my means of communication her
Richard Harris wrote at 07/12/2011 02:07 PM:
> I just wish my eyes didn't glaze over and my mind go numb whenever
> I'm confronted with anything that smacks of philosophy.
That phrase is interesting: "smacks of philosophy". My point with the
relativity principle and electrodynamics article was, i
Count yourself as blessed, it's a great defensive mechanism. It works
pretty well against just about any flavor of religious proselytizing too.
--Doug
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 3:07 PM, Richard Harris wrote:
>
>
> I just wish my eyes didn't glaze over and my mind go numb whenever I'm
> confronted
I haven't followed the previous discussions regarding "philosophy vs. science"
but I think the "philosophy of science" is vitally important, especially as it
pertains to "what is knowledge?" and "what is science?" and especially when
things that are science are under attack.
I realised this las
I agree totally. Everything is incremental, including biological
evolution, invention, etc.
You may be familiar with Rev. Paley's watchmaker argument in the early
1800s, that if you find a gold watch it is dishonest to pretend it
didn't have a watchmaker, and belongs to no one. Paley argued that
s
Nick sez:
> Glen,
>
> ** Sorry if I have been obtuse. It's partly because I can be obtuse and
> partly because my means of communication here at the farm are so primitive
> that errors are easy to make and easy to get out of control.
>
> **
>
> ** I had just about decided that I shouldn't pa
age-
From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf
Of glen e. p. ropella
Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 10:45 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Philosophy vs. science
Nicholas Thompson wrote at 07/11/2011 05:58 PM:
> But before
Not surprisingly, I have an opinion about this too! ;-) I tend to think
that all progress, everywhere, in all cases, consists of tiny
transitions from prior state. Even the seemingly important or
paradigmatic shifts like Newton's or the fall of the Berlin Wall are
really the accumulation of many
Nicholas Thompson wrote at 07/11/2011 05:58 PM:
> But before I say why -- again -- could you tell me how (if?) you think
> mathematics is different from science.
Don't bother saying it again. I read, understood, and agree with what
you've posted. Similarly, I've already posted what I think philo
Message-
From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf
Of glen e. p. ropella
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2011 7:03 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: [FRIAM] Philosophy vs. science
I'm curious to know what the "philosophy is very
Without reading the paper, I can offer one way in which academic
physics is exactly like the description of academic philosophy offered
in earlier postings, namely that much research and scholarship are
tweaks on prior work.
Some years ago at a workshop we gave for physics faculty about our
intro
I'm curious to know what the "philosophy is very different from science"
camp thinks of this paper:
http://phil.elte.hu/leszabo/Preprints/MG-LESz-rp_preprint-v5.pdf
It's not a rhetorical question. I don't understand that paper or the
physics or math being discussed ... at least not to my sati
13 matches
Mail list logo
