| Kāpēc realitāte ir neizzināma |
[5. Maijs 2011|15:13] |
Daži lieliski citāti no filozofijas foruma.
Labāks ir nevis tas modelis, kurš ir pareizāks, bet tas, kurš labāk apraksta novērojumu rezultātus!Death Monkey wrote:
The data cannot say anything about "ontological randomness", because such a concept is not coherently defined in the first place. A model of the universe can be random or deterministic. The universe just is what it is. Any attempt to talk about the universe being random or deterministic that does not amount to saying that a random or deterministic model is a better description of the universe, is a category mistake, not a coherent metaphysical view of the universe.
"Zinātne ir modelēšana," kā teica Kārlis Podnieks.Death Monkey wrote:
The thing is, models are a central and critical tool in science, and in the philosophy of science, as well as in epistemology and metaphysics in general. So you cannot really discuss these topics without discussing models. You seem to want to leave out models completely, but you can't. Instead, when you attempt to do so, you just end up talking about models when you think you're talking about reality. Then you are making a category mistake.
Zinātne nenodarbina sevi ar to, "kas ir patiesībā". Tai nevajag sevi ar to nodarbināt. Zinātnieks ne tikai var būt, tam pat ir jābūt agnostiskam attiecībā uz realitātes ultimatīvo dabu. |
|
|