[Message Deleted]
-
Kevin McFarlane wrote:
Well, it could be true that it is not explainable by physics in the sense that it is explained (eventually) by biology rather than physics. This is another way of saying that reductionism doesn't hold even in the basic sciences (a philosophical discussion point among scientists and philosophers of science).
Ultimately, all biology is nothing more than extremely complex organic chemistry and the rules behind chemical bonding and reactions are all nuclear physics. Ultimately you can't get away from it without invoking the great pumpkin. :rolleyes:
-- CleaKO The sad part about this instance is that none of the users ever said anything [about the problem]. Pete O`Hanlon Doesn't that just tell you everything you need to know about users?
dan neely wrote:
Ultimately, all biology is nothing more than extremely complex organic chemistry and the rules behind chemical bonding and reactions are all nuclear physics.
That's right. But reductionism doesn't automatically follow from this. That is, it doesn't follow that you can explain, i.e., deduce, the laws of chemistry from the laws of physics or the laws of biology from the laws of physics. Karl Popper argues this in books such as The Open Universe and The Self and Its Brain.
Kevin
-
Haha.. I see!... Religion is for lost people. And doesn't help them find the light, just forbid them from remembering they are lost....
-
I think a knowledge of both is integral (along with various other studies) to being a true, thoughtful, 21st century renaissance (wo)man. I've always admired traditional classical education very much, with its emphasis on the connectedness of the tree of knowledge (and which culminates in theology, as you mention). What Berlinski is looking for is a comprehensive education (and I am really racking my brain for a good word to call this but am drawing a blank) that reflects a modern "best-understanding" of the world from top to bottom. He, like everyone else, is hoping to answer the questions: "Who am I?", "What is my place in the world?", and then "Given that knowledge, what should I do with myself?" Physics is as integral to the whole tree of knowledge as anything else, but as a foundation. It sets the stage, by answering the first two questions, so that people can intelligently think about the third question. But my understanding of his comment was that he was shocked, or disappointed, or something that physics couldn't answer #3 directly. And that's what I took issue with. To fall back into corny metaphor, you can't begin to build a house without a foundation, but to expect that foundation to keep the rain off your head, and then fault the foundation for not doing so, is lunacy. Science describes, philosophy prescribes, and we need both, but let's not try to apply the disciplines to things they were never intended to do.