Philosophy Now Forum

hi jetsetjason, my views are: bigness isn't 'therefore' complexity. complexity isn't 'therefore' chaos. chaos for the subject isn't 'therefore' chaos of the object. quirkiness for the subject isn't 'therefore' quirkiness of the object. 'chaos theory' is a subject's tool rather than something that ta...

hi jetsetjason not being able to find a context of pattern underlying a context of randomness, neither means that there is one to find nor means that there isn't one to find. who knows what the next conceptual paradigm might throw up with respect to current wonderings about 'radioactive decay', if t...

hi jetsetjason, isn't the quirkiness, really no more than a feeling that a subject feels when confronted with an object that is unfamiliar to that subject? is there really any quirkiness out there? is there really any mystery but a subject's mystification? any quirkiness other than a subject's 'quir...

hi philro, thank-you for your 2nd response :D and, i've read wilson's 'consilience', an interesting view. thanks for that, anyway. i agree with you that specialists can be tribal, vain, territorial or however one identifies it. ------------------------------------------------------------------------...

My enquiry regards the methodology of (current) orthodox science, not general science's staying power. For example, does the methodology arbitrarily foster ever increasing and more deeply segregated specialisations? Will specialisations eventually begin to converge, as result of discoveries founded ...

Does anyone view orthodox science as having any fundamental methodological flaw(s), despite the wealth of data it has generated? In other words, does it need to change, or even be replaced wholesale, if it is not to bring itself, and even humanity, into crisis? Is orthodox science methodologically u...

thanx mickthinks

...looking forward to mentally mingling with some animals that like to think about the given..