RE: [OPE] science and scientology

There continues to be some discussion in computability theory about just what Turing meant in a couple of his founding papers. These remain the topics of some controversy.

________________________________________
From: ope-bounces@lists.csuchico.edu [ope-bounces@lists.csuchico.edu] On Behalf Of Gerald Levy [jerry_levy@verizon.net]
Sent: Sunday, May 31, 2009 11:21 AM
To: Outline on Political Economy mailing list
Subject: Re: [OPE] science and scientology

Jurriaan:

It is not my beliefs which are in question in this thread. I asked
a simple question: all anyone had to do was give legitimate examples
from any field of science.

You profoundly miss the point in the following:

> To my knowledge, researchers in theoretical physics do refer back to
> Einstein, and certainly philosophers of science do.

The point is that when a new question in physics is raised, physicists
most certainly do *not* comb through Einstein's writings in the belief
that the answer to their question - or even a way to approach towards
getting an answer - can be found there.

> There are numerous unresolved problems implied by Einstein's advances,

Of course. Neither here nor there.

> In the philosophy and history of science, Copernicus and the Copernican
> revolution are still being discussed, amongst other things because of
> their importance for the processes of scientific discovery.

But, *no* reputable astronomer would be so unscientific to try to answer a
new
question in the field by asking "What did Copernicus write about a related
question?".

No astronomer would relate to the writings of Copernicus as many socialists
relate to the writings of Marx. No physicist would relate to the writings
of Einstein
as many socialists relate to the writings of Marx. No psychologist would
relate to the
writings of Freud as many socialists relate to the writings of Marx. I
purposely
wrote socialists rather than Marxists here so you can include yourself in
that group.

In solidarity, Jerry

Many scientific people
> are moreover in the habit of studying great scholars in the history of
> their discipline, in order to get more clues that can lead to success, and
> any reputable scientist is at least conversant with the great original
> texts in his own discipline or specialism. Scientists believe, that we may
> still be able to learn things from Copernicus, even although science has
> moved on way beyond what he could imagine.
>
> But, as I said, this is very different from the ideological and
> theological concerns of Marxist sciptures and scrolls, the main aim of
> which is to allocate every aspect to reality to a prefabricated Marxist
> categorisation of life, the universe and everything, and to prove how the
> categories can be deduced from each other. As Popper mentioned, there is a
> difference between the logic of discovery and the logic of justification,
> and the Marxists primarily aim to justify their faith, not to discover
> anything new.
>
> Jurriaan
>
>
>
>
>
>
> E-mail message checked by Spyware Doctor (6.0.0.362)
> Database version: 5.10260
> http://www.pctools.com/uk/spyware-doctor-antivirus/
> _______________________________________________
> ope mailing list
> ope@lists.csuchico.edu
> https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope

_______________________________________________
ope mailing list
ope@lists.csuchico.edu
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope_______________________________________________
ope mailing list
ope@lists.csuchico.edu
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
Received on Sun May 31 16:05:39 2009