never said I was right. I'ma human being and I am limited, I will not always be right, or even a few times. My aim is to raise some concern in other human beings in relation to a particular subject in particular that I have become interested and believe that I have found - to pass it freely among the grids of my intellect - some important matter, interesting or curious about it. You can not write about everything in the world and choose some subjects in particular to write about because they are touched me somehow. Still, the moment that I write, it seems urgent to discuss such issues with another free-spirited soul.
When it comes to a more scientific or philosophical argument to write and be right, but to emphasize a point that has important finding in the discussion and see that argument being scrutinized by others. I write to be questioned, do not write and never wrote to agree with me. My main task in writing is playing with the reader, to dance with him, show him the pleasure to find this aesthetica rational thought or a particular line of argument. But my job is also to test the reader, see if that comes with the argument and check if they can build ideas that will add on the steps of our multidimensional understanding [1].
much better I'll feel better as a critic can show me a complete failure in my line of argument and show me the light that is directed logical thinking in that area of \u200b\u200bknowledge. I am not a receptacle of infinite knowledge and there are a myriad of issues that ignore solemnly - and others know where my only touches the surface. However, the reader may rest assured that when I write, I give my most sincere opinion about something. I avoid as much as I can from dogmatism or attempts of uninterrupted have my opinion manipulated or biased in some way. Often fail, however, this trail, and so I ask for help from my teammates to save me and indicate my failures.
My logical view on the world and on society, considering the regularities observed there extends from my everyday, through my political thinking to my work as a scientist and researcher. [2]
In my opinion, a scientific theory is simply an intellectual adventure where the researcher tries to describe how the universe works, in his view, for all the other people in society. This is what I am doing what is stimulating and every scientist to do. It is understood here as an intellectual study science any where you want to get some regularity in the world intellectually honest way, without bias or dogma of conduct.
There is a phrase often attributed to Albert Einstein, which reads: " The only man who is free of errors, is the one who sticks hit." Regardless of whether it was German or not that coined, I fully agree with it, risking always hit me and being covered in the same proportion of errors. I ask the reader to show me who is capable of. Humbly thank ...
(But also be sure that I will defend my ideas and their inherent logic to its limits break, where some of them have it scrapped altogether [3], and then succumb and accept competing views on the same topic. And perhaps, very careful, is you to be convinced of his own mistake by coming my question. Let us fight with loyalty and mutual admiration: I have a certain conviction that all honest search [4] the understanding is beautiful and should be praised!)
===
[1] One day I thought it would be well understood, I now see that distanced myself from the ordinary knowledge and have difficulty speaking the same language of my students.
[2] In one of the first texts of intellectual content that I wrote: " a guide to the skeptic Bohemian "already identified the difference between the scientist-to-door laboratory for the true scientist. The first is a good professional and the second also is a good citizen, always consistent in their views. Today also saw the same an interesting lecture of the controversial winner of the Nobel Prize for chemistry in 1993 for his discovery of the polymerase chain reaction (PCR). this TED conference, Kary Mullis differentiates individuals who are scientists during the week and are not on the weekends .
[3] Here, I quote another classic of this blog posting "Pierre Duhem was a physicist and philosopher Science Frenchman who lived between 1861 and 1916. For Duhem, a scientific theory consists of a set of statements and presents empirical consequences (EC). In contrast, however, Popper's thinking - that is, the refutation of an EC refutes the theory - Duhem states that the refutation of an empirical result does not necessarily refute the theory. Since the theory is composed of a set of statements, some of them can it be fake and some ad hoc device can be used to save the theory. The core issue is related to the fact that in an experiment, you never know exactly what you are testing a theory and is always tested in blocks, being tied to a particular set of assumptions. "Is this block Duhemian that the arguer must try to disprove my theory on that I agree to pass his version of the same event.
[4] The concept of intellectual honesty theft Imre Lakatos and consists in finding honest and non-dogmatic by the knowledge. This is so much honesty in the conversation of the day-to-day [5] and in the scientific quest [6].
[5] In the first case: how many people have not found in table bar that simply speak for speak and did not seem to make arguments that are not even logical, let alone non-dogmatic ... The normal individual does not seem to understand much on logic and appears to be highly influenced by the media to repeat falsehoods as necessary truths. Arguments from authority and outrageous fallacies are dogmatically repeated day after day by individuals who are unable to perceive themselves as mere meme machines operating to maintain the status quo. I do not believe at all that would be better to leave them so ignorant, for the good of the whole society. I do not think that it did not understand the logic of the discussion for cognitive difficulties or loss intellectuals. I believe otherwise, that education epistemological knowledge about the foundations of scientific thought is incredibly important to improve our society. I've been ignorant epistemologically and know the difference it made to my worldview better understand both the strengths and limits of knowledge, and the logical chain of assumptions and necessary consequences of them.
[6] In the latter case it is dictated by both (i) observation and analysis of empirical data and by (ii) construction of a metaphysical theory to explain all the observations logically. Such a theory should still be able to explain past events and predict future events, demonstrating that it has been able to understand certain logic inherent in the nature of the universe. This theory, in fact, need not be "correct" and can only be a crude but effective simplification (in terms of human life) of what happens in reality unattainable and absurdly complex.
0 comments:
Post a Comment