A little 'a surprise even to myself, I began to write more frequently in these pages. Surprise, because for a while 'I devote myself more to photography than to write an outlet for my creative ambitions misplaced (for those who want to take a look, this link gives you access to my pages on www.flickr.com).
A little 'a surprise even to myself, from my allotment last wrote a few days ago who spoke in the broad sense, the fear of science, to begin a reflection on my mind for a long time. And perhaps it is time to begin to pull out and put in black and white. The time has come around because they are also stimulating discussions , whose role ends up being not so much and not only the exchange of ideas, but rather the impulse to reflect, review and research the ideas themselves.
I know it will be a long job, because I'll summarize and give a completed form to the boiling for some time in the empty box that I have a head, and said the project is not me succeed and, if they can at least in part, the result of something coherent and complete. For this reason, and also to avoid the usual density of plutonic my writing, inspiring example of the discussions referred to above will try to develop a speech series. And I'm sorry about before you start, but I know that I'll be mythopoeic compelling as the author of the example that precedes me and inspires me. My speech will be much little logos and mythos . I do not think that poets and singers will stop leaving their contributions:)), because I like the background music ' Art of Fugue by Bach, and I doubt that the good young Sebastian could only return from the dead to comment on my blog. So I hope to be, if not compelling, at least convincing.
The target is the fear of science, and symbolizes that hides all the fears of men, ancient and modern (the latter with a number of aggravating and text to load). The excuse is the old Aristotle, to use as a metaphor for speech and at the same time, as practice for the argument against Platonism. Seeing in the latter a current, underground or surface depending on the cultural and historical moments, which periodically comes to suggesting solutions otherworldly, and extracorporeal iperuranee, read incorporeal, for trees and distresses the daily whims of being human.
I feel moved to this location for several reasons, professional, cultural, personal and even sentimental, the latter being, as always, if not the most important, at least the most stringent. But the fear of science in the sense of cognitive activity (which is that at that fraction of people in spite of little or poorly educated) is so biblically rooted, to force even the minds of philosophers established operations to counter denial and comparable from one side to the historical revisionism and political propaganda to the other. I am sure that many, at this point, evoking both came across as an example artificial opposition between Darwinism and creationism. But I think the more obvious cases, though less known, such as the controversy started by Koyré and supported by Feyerabend against Galileo's experiments. In brief summary, the choice antiempirista of these philosophers of science came to the forcing of wanting to make a Galilean platonic idealism strongly influenced (in the words of Koyré, a Platonism "deep and conscious that they had recognized those who had previously spoke of a Galilean platonic "). Because the Vulgate has it that the new science was incompatible with Aristotle, Galileo and would therefore opposed to the world of substances and accidents of Aristotle, the mathematical universe of Plato. This transformation of Galileo empirical idealist has come to deny that Galileo ever really done the experiments recounted in his works. PK Feyerabend has come to present Galileo as an unscrupulous scientist, who did not hesitate to use in the sense of observational data filocopernicano questionable, hiding with skillful maneuvers weak aspects of the theory. For pure
the record will serve to recall that after the criticism motivated by a clear project "political" scientists a bit 'all over the world have tried to reproduce the experiments and even to reconstruct the Galilean instruments, demonstrating the perfect plausibility historiography of the experiments and results. What question would then remain the intellectual attitude of Galileo, or if his work experience has really had the primary role, or whether there are overridden by the mathematical aspect than empirical, as the experiment conducted as verification of assumptions made with theoretical arguments. It 'a controversy of this long term and not a little time in the epistemological debate, but not essential for what I want to talk. Because the written word - that something finally will count - Galileo has never ceased to stress that his Aristotle, had he been alive, he would come to his aid to defend the new astronomical discoveries of the seventeenth century (see the edition of "Heaven" of Aristotle edited by Alberto Jori).
The controversy between the theory or del'esperienza priority goes to the very heart of science, and goes even deeper to the heart, or mind, the relationship between man and cosmos. To start this in my own speech from the limits of human perception, and for this I need first to establish the boundaries of the statute .
First, my view is anthropocentric , and could not be otherwise. Not in the classic sense and potentially negative that has come to give this term, but in a way that, in contrast, conveys all the limitations of animal nature of human beings. Let me explain.
We have experience in the world exclusively through the external border of our body, our border. The border of our body is in constant interaction with the universe, which, when assembled in its portion accessible to us for convenience define reality (bypassing for the moment, any discussion about the reality of reality). We homo sapiens perceive changes in temperature and pressure through the skin, light radiation through the cornea, we recognize various types of molecules through the nasal mucosa and lips, transform sound pressure air through the tympanic membrane, our life cycles are based on the alternation of day and night land rate from which the only intervals that we can understand and handle. This combination of sensitivity intervals (where a competent neuroanatomy easy to recognize the dynamic range of neurons in each nucleus of the central nervous system) is the domain of our interaction with reality, beyond this we can not go. Even the largest and most sophisticated instruments of measurement and observation of the modern era, to fathom interstellar distances, or subatomic distances, and penetrate at times dozens of orders of magnitude shorter or longer periods of our day, in the end require a translation that makes them readable and manipulable by the hands, eyes and human ears.
Thus, our perception of reality is anthropocentric. So what is the meaning of a question like "what is reality?" We, that is, no chance to get an idea of \u200b\u200bwhat may exist outside the border of our body? The response through the development of culture, namely through the logos, that is, through Aristotle Stagira.
0 comments:
Post a Comment