Dear James Thank you for the update and answer you right away. As the hypothesis being with the meta'di this month and, if necessary, to begin with attivita'seminariale meta'di January 2006, I can not say anything but I could not / I will be able 'to be there, I could not / `I will be able to then anyway prepare something interesting and intelligent one of the two themes proposed by the editors. These strike me as valid, but I reserve the right to return to the methodology to be followed regarding this matter, which e'trasversale, open, interdisciplinary nonche'interclassista, all of which meet less PIU' my favor and I do believe that cutting of the journal avra'-or perhaps have a gia'-and post-modern. E'giusto remember that the spirit of the initiative lies la'del of the usual editorial container in which to forcibly return the powers of each. But I wonder, 'whether it is also right, in a preliminary stage, confirm what we ourselves are able to "contain" the proposed theme. Finally, I think that is an opportunity for guidance work of drafting - and not heads of federation researched - is finally an opportunity to examine some common places, some defects in humanist ideology, which is artificially preformed almost always our questions when we relate to science. To explain better I make you a quick example. Some time fa'un epistemologist German named Hübner, had tried to reduce the debate between quantum theories and theories of an array of type relativita'a mythography: in essence and pace of physical theories of science were in his ontologically equal to the formulas of the myth. In fact, both aspiring to a universal description of reality ', poiche'entrambe imply a system of explanation that is based on assumptions and theological substance. In short, theories describe but not explain, cosi'come mythography in a whole world comes to life from an egg or a chaos of that egg and knowing nothing of the chaos. Both the mathematical and physical taken as the egg is percio'non science. A couple of years later, a French epistemologist, Boudon, showed how the theories of science are based in realta'su verita'che si'indimostrabili are, but they are mathematically and cioe'all'interno a defendant horizon possibilita'di verification only of use and enjoyment of mathematics. In mathematics, the dimostrabilita'o not an assumption in turn has a policy of mathematicity ', some substantive, logical course, but never completely analytical, which puo'percio'essere described / published / organized by another gaming system of symbols. Thus the scientific theory tries to explain vertically, which does not occur in the myth, and it poiche'fondamentale 'and his continued lead sara'sempre horizontally, ie across time and culture. All this potra'sembrarti extrinsic and brainy with respect to our intentions well piu'umili editorials, but the case e'esemplare perche'dimostra hybrid as epistemology, the "sentimentalist" humanist Hübner, lacking the necessary critical distance to tackle the problem of the second method from a myth false definition of mathematics. I believe that we will face the same risk, before they give us a solid and shared what piu'possibile idea of \u200b\u200bwhat we mean by machine, technology, biotech, etc.. For my part, since now the 'official entry into the arena, I suggest maybe to submit along with the title of his speech, or in relation to the land of interest, a reference reading, consultation, it is encyclopedic, emerografico or essay, a short methodological support to understand what is spoken, in which field you want to discuss whether and in what terms they want accountability. I've seen here in Monaco, in the library of letters, that there is a magazine specializing in piu'di (cerchero'di send in the coming days the title and series), and that the lexicon of German aesthetics among its entries " technology "and" machine ". Here, I feel that this e'quello for now, given my distance (across the board) in work in progress in Bologna, to show himself to the success of our hearing - and I hope still to be affected - a publishing project. Raoul
Melotto
PS: Forgive the use Paleolithic e un po´sessantottino dell´apostrofo, ma sulle tastiere tedesche non esiste la vocale accentata.
0 comments:
Post a Comment