Posted by DSCH on November 12, 2003, at 1:31:36
In reply to Re: DSCH » DSCH, posted by femlite on November 11, 2003, at 22:45:15
> Odder still is the ability to act on one's own behalf.
>
> ***Forgive me for jumping into waters Im quite sure my head is not suffiecintly above, but just for fun, what is odd exactly about acting on belief?Notice I said "on one's on behalf", not belief. Can a bacterium be said to have belief? However, it goes about and finds food and trades information with other bacteria and reproduces. As such it performs infintely better than any automata that we have yet produced, and in a microscopic package to boot.
> .. concerned only with the fit of theory to observations rather than the fit of theory to our preconceptions of how the universe works.
>
> ***there is no such thing as true objectivety, scientist often start with presupositions, ie..the metaphysical relm does not exist... and work from their presupositons.That is why the final appeal is to experiment. And the presuppositions are discarded along with the used paper coffee cups if they do not work. ;-)
>Pasteur and a great many scientist were laughed out of the profession, for just such myopic hard headedness, no?
Not Pasteur. He was a vitalist anyway. As most continential biologists were at the turn of the century.
> They take on an air of reality (or even "ueber-reality" to make a gross cross-linguistic construct) to the user, but do any of them necessarily conform to objective reality? Is it even testable? However, they are indeed interesting for revealing what is latent inside of our own "mental territory".
>
> ***As science is continually evolving, how can any scientist worth his salt claim that it is possible to possess "objective" realism? To rule out what we have not yet proven or disproven seems a lack of true scientific spirit.See above. Frankly I have read so many different "great revelations" people have had on acid or mushrooms that they certainly can't all be true reports on the nature of reality.
> > >You do occur to me German- is it your composer/moniker? Probably a throwback from conversing with my Swedish friends via text.
> >
> > DSCH is the Germanization of his initals that corresponds to a four note figure he used as a musical signature. He himself was most definately Russian (St. Petersburger to be precise). As for me I am of Norwegian-German(Holsteiner)-English heritage. :-)
>
> ***I have great respect for your opinions on MOST occassions DSCH, (and shall continue to have). And not ALL Germans are so materialistic. ;-)Yes, Hitler for one was quite the romantic, nes pas? ;-) Artist as leader, vessel for his peoples' remdemption and vengance, and history-changing figure. Reality bent to the Will (that is until the rest of world came knocking on his doorstep). All vicious nonsense.
On the other hand Niels Bohr, for having such an uncompromising view of science and the philosophy of science, was a family man, father-figure to a community of scientists, political conscience of the nuclear age, and Danish cultural figure.
poster:DSCH
thread:276748
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20031031/msgs/278869.html