On 02 Sep 2010, at 10:03, Rex Allen wrote:
On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 3:50 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 02 Sep 2010, at 04:15, Rex Allen wrote:
Accidentalism, and...what else? Refraining from metaphysical
speculation altogether?
That is the good idea!
Easier said than done! I've sworn it off 4 times this year...but here
I am again.
:)
There is no problem with metaphysical speculation. It is, I think,
unavoidable when we do fundamental research.
But personally, I think that when we want make a public presentation,
it is best to separate the speculative part, which is the theory, from
the conclusion/theorem we can derive from the theory. It is vain to
defend the assumption-speculation-theory as being true or real or
whatever.
Science is only collection of theories, and statements derive in those
theories, and intepretation rules, and confirmation modus operandi.
Only layman and engineers have to hope that their theories fits enough
a reality.
The theories and the reasoning can be presented informally or
formally. Rigor has nothing to do with formalization, but a lot to do
with clarity. It is also better that the theory/assumption are shared
by many, because ... it is more fun.
Take it easy,
Bruno
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
