- Shian-Loong Bernard Lew added an answer:32Is "knowledge" only a knowledge of models of reality, not knowledge of reality itself?Studies, such as by Godel, on incompleteness imply all conceptual systems, including logic and mathematics, and, by extension, the sciences, are incomplete.
Very immersive discussions! Coming on board rather late...The history of science and its philosophy has in large part been a history of instrumentation. Whether it be the chronology of successive technological advancements or the rise and fall of systems of thought.And as such, though the object of investigation may be real (ontologically-speaking), the meaning, learning and knowledge through the course of interacting with it is always obscured- "through an instrument dimly." Thanks in part to the human mind as an instrument, and also the collective consciousness as a ferment for ideas, or a graveyard of lost/redundant ideas. The finite does not attain to the universal, as Gödel admitted with his attempts at axiomatizing math.Yet within the bounded is to be found the boundless.Even models and metaphors can be beautiful with much depth of hope. As one might be awed by the implications from Cantor's dust.Following
- Eduardo Alfredo Duro added an answer:26How do you define research ethics?Ethical issues are a complimentary part of any research. What are their reality and origin?
Research Ethics is the branch of practical philosophy which addresses questions of morality in relation with all stages of process used to understand the world, such planning, conducting and evaluating an experiment to understand or describes causal processes or investigate a phenomenon.Following
- 16Robotics, Genetics and AI with a touch of Philosophical prediction?Would it be reasonable to think that combining Molecular Genetics and Cognitive Robotics will some day (ex. in 10, 50, 100 yrs.) contribute to a successful convergence between man and machine to combat disease and degeneration of humans?
Many science writers seem to say the merger in not too far away now. Should we believe them?
Cognitive robots (electro-mechanically based) capable of fully interacting with our environment will be a significantly different architecture from biological systems. It is possible to have a biological solution and a mechanical/electronic system both of which may be, in some sense, viable (with respect to the environment) but which are mutually incompatible. And still we cannot say that we will build a cybernetic solution within the next few decades. Convergence (if even possible) need not occur.
Why do I say this? Because the driving force of their development is not the environment but the minds of people applying modelling, determinism, discrete rules from a basis which is machine dominated. (ie we are trying to simulate living systems)Following
- Andrey Luchnik added an answer:56The study of parts and wholes - any thoughts?
I am looking for any information about the academic study of parts and wholes and the relationships between parts and parts as well as parts and wholes. I am interested in these entities especially from a philosophical, psychological and cognition point of view. I would be extremely grateful if anyone could share their knowledge in this area and their knowledge of sources on this topic.Following
- Mikael M Karlsson added an answer:10Is it possible to provide a simple definition of Aristotle's concept of powers?How does this relate to causation in his work?
The target of your question is somewhat unclear, as is indicated by the rather diverse reactions of other respondents. Are you asking for a "simple definition" of dynamis (δύναμις),: the term that Aristotle uses for potency, potentiality, capacity, power, where the translation (into English, say) depends upon the context? As you list your topic as "metaphysics", dynamis would be the most likely candidate for the thing for which you hope to find a simple definition. If so, then there is no one simple definition to be found, but there are several definitions, as is so often the case for Aristotle's key systematic terms, since these are, according to him, typically polysemous. The normal place to start looking is in Metaphysics V — Aristotle's own "dictionary" of key terms. That doesn't always provide what you want, since the dictionary is not always in accord with what Aristotle says elsewhere. Moreover, the definitions provided may be difficult to fathom without reference to the larger discussions where the terms in question are deployed. But, if you are in fact interested in "power" in the sense of dynamis, then you will find Aristotle's own definitions in Metaphysics V, beginning at 1019a15. What he says there, in Tredennick's translation, is this:
- - -
[1019a]  "Potency" [δύναμις] means: (a) the source of motion or change which is in something other than the thing changed, or in it qua other. E.g., the science of building is a potency which is not present in the thing built; but the science of medicine, which is a potency, may be present in the patient, although not qua patient. Thus "potency" means the source in general of change or motion in another thing, or in the same thing qua other;  or the source of a thing's being moved or changed by another thing, or by itself qua other (for in virtue of that principle by which the passive thing is affected in any way we call it capable of being affected; sometimes if it is affected at all, and sometimes not in respect of every affection, but only if it is changed for the better). (b) The power of performing this well or according to intention; because sometimes we say that those who can merely take a walk, or speak, without doing it as well as they intended, cannot speak or walk. And similarly in the case of passivity. (c) All states in virtue of which things are unaffected generally, or are unchangeable, or cannot readily deteriorate, are called "potencies." For things are broken and worn out and bent and in general destroyed not through potency but through impotence and deficiency of some sort; and things are unaffected by such processes which are scarcely or slightly affected because they have a potency and are potent and are in a definite state.
Since "potency" has all these meanings, "potent" (or "capable") will mean (a) that which contains a source of motion or change (for even what is static is "potent" in a sense) which takes place in another thing, or in itself qua other.
- - -
And there is more of interest in the immediately following text. However, if you seek really to understand Aristotle's idea of a dynamis in the sense of a power to affect (or, for that matter, to be affected ) then you will want to look at his insightful discussion in Metaphysics IX, starting at 1046a1.
If you want to connect up the notion of a "power" with larger issues of causation and agency, you might like to read (among other things) my article, "Agency and Patiency — Back to Nature?" (Philosophical Explorations 5:1 (2002) pp. 59-81). At any rate, a "simple definition" of dynamis will not, by itself, get you all that far.Following
- Paul M.W. Hackett added an answer:31Are you optimists or pessimists for the future of humanity?There are many readings for the same set of data for our evolution as human beings. Others read the circular growth and recession times by a pessimistic mood while others believe that humanity after having tried different systems finally will converge to a stable and viable status for all of us and not for a small subset of us.
What do you think about?
Pessimism seems to me to be rather like nihilism: both ring true but take us nowhere. It is not exactly a useful doctrine to believe that there is little meaning to anything and that most things are negative. However, to believe anything else is irrational.Following
- Ferenc Hörcher added an answer:23Is Legal positivism of Hans Kelsen outdated by Dworkin?
Legal positivism, by contrast to natural law, holds that there is no necessary connection between law and morality and that the force of law comes from some basic social facts. Legal positivists differ on what those facts are. (Soper, "Legal Positivism", Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy)
In his book Law's Empire Dworkin attacked Hart and the positivists for their refusal to treat law as a moral issue. Dworkin argues that law is an 'interpretive' concept, that requires judges to find the best-fitting and most just solution to a legal dispute, given their constitutional traditions. (Ronald Dworkin, Law's Empire (1986) Harvard University Press)
I do not think that it isan objectively decidable either-or question, but I myself side in this respect with Dowrkin. However, i would go further, and claim, that natural law still has a relevance, as human nature decides a priori certain things, that can be excluded from becoming law, and certain other things, that must be included in any normal working mechanisms of law.Following
- Mark A Symmons added an answer:68Can anyone help me with sources on the philosophy of perception?I am doing some writing in the area of philosophical understandings of perception. Specifically I am interested in how we perceive abstract art. I would be grateful if anyone has any references of the general area of the philosophy of perception or the application of this to art perception.
Very much a focus on vision and visual processes. The original question did not specify vision. There's no reason why abstract art in particular cannot have haptic (touch) aspects in particular, but also auditory elements etc. Would anyone care to reflect more on that?Following
- Jerry Rhee added an answer:18What is the scientific method suitable for research in the area of legal philosophy?
To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry is commonly based on empirical or measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. (Rules for the study of natural philosophy", Newton transl 1999, pp. 794–6, after Book 3,The System of the World.)
I find nothing in Marcelo’s definition of the scientific method that says it is a “quantitative reductionist empiricist behavioral definition of scientificity”. In fact, the things you talk about can be given formal descriptions where good ones are expected to be adapted and sustained.
You also make a good point about how we shouldn’t ignore the different values we hold regarding interpretation of signs.
“In spite of the often confusing plurality of terms, it is reasonably clear that mediation, which is almost equivalent to Peirce's third category (see, in particular, CP 1.328 [c. 1894]; CP 2.88 ; PPM 193 f. ; NEM 4:308), is the most generic way of characterising semiosis.
That is, whatever else semiotic representation, determination, and communication may turn out to be, they can plausibly be construed as modes or aspects of mediation. In semeiotic, mediation is intimately associated with the fundamental semiotic relationship, taken as a triadic whole; the mediating sign is something that brings two other semiotic subjects into a certain kind of irreducible relation. Or, expressed differently, the sign mediates between the object and the interpretant (EP 2:410 )…
…Peirce undeniably characterises his theory of signs as a scientific undertaking, but that does not mean that semeiotic would study nothing but science; Peirce himself tends to view practically everything that can in any sense be investigated in semiotic terms (see SS 85 f. ).
~ Mats Bergman, “Reflections on the role of the communicative sign in semeiotic”.Following
- 8Pros and Cons of ICT development. What are Social Bugs of Technology? What has changed or will change in individuals and society due to technology?I am trying to get a big picture of where we as individuals and as a society are going. Coming from the technological side, I am not interested in condemning technology as a total, but rather trying to identify “social bugs”, as I call them, to improve our everyday life.
This question is trying to understand:
1. What exactly has changed at individual (psychological) level and in our society (relationships, culture, etc.)?
2. Why has it changed?
3. What was it that changed it?
4. How could that be avoided?
I highly appreciate interdisciplinary answers, personal opinions and links to related research.
1) Social dependency
The rate of change that we now live with is fuelled by technologies such as computers. Coping with change creates stress and isolation. Although much larger populations can be made plausibly viable with these tools a large underclass can be left out or made dependent. This creates vulnerable sub-classes - this may be a design flaw. Software engineers will tell that design flaws are many times harder and more costly to fix than basic bugs. The consequences will tend to be new groupings. (Made easier by the very technology that created the problem!)
2) Basis Loss
The dependency on technology to solve everyday tasks can create a loss of connection with the process that would have been used in the past. It creates the illusion that this is how it is now done so I need not know anything more about it. Unfortunately knowing how things arise helps us check their validity and without it we move on with blind acceptance. Apply this to large populations with all that attendant inertia and the result is loss of ability to question and refine. The current social and scientific beliefs become difficult to escape from.
3) Meme propagation (see the selfish Gene - Richard Dawkins)
With the advent of powerful communications and computing, random and even bizarre beliefs now regularly haunt the more susceptible. This attacks social cohesion. The internet is not a particularly good thing when this affect is taken into account. Again this is at the level of a design flaw.
4) Peer Pressure - herd mentality brings conformity but frequently it can still be detrimental.
5) Isolation - Just stand waiting for a train at any British station and watch the phones come out and the frantic dobbing at titchy screens. No one looks around - they are all in their own heads. It is probably no longer rare for two people to hold a via SMS/email when they are near enough to talk.
6) A new fashion industry - mobiles/computing - a cynical move?
7) Games - relieve the pressure of real interaction by playing games to get the reward of apparent (safe ) interactions in a game. Again isolating.
All bugs condemn a system to some extent. So the negative slant is predominant here. For example the last one; games could be seen as coping strategy that can be taught via a game but it rarely meets the total need and creates an illusion of a solution.
So what is good? Systems and solutions that are far beyond our ability to handle can be realised. Examples military sensors and defence systems , power controls systems, government management systems (tax and pensions) trading systems... do you notice these tend to be for the social "animal". Individuality traded out for sake of society. That is not actually bad but in a trade-off it should ultimately find an acceptable balance - that is the point.Following
- 7Does anyone know the origin of the term mereology?Stanisław Leśniewski originated the term mereology as the study of part - whole relationships. Does anyone know where this term was first used by him?
this one sounds more viable and relevant ?
Stanisław Leśniewski (1886–1939) was one of the principal founders and movers of the school of logic that flourished in Warsaw between the two world wars. He was the originator of an unorthodox system of the foundations of mathematics, based on three formal systems: Protothetic, a logic of propositions and their functions; Ontology: a logic of names, and functors of arbitrary order; and Mereology, a general theory of part and whole. His concern for utmost rigor in the formalization and execution of logic, coupled with a nominalistic rejection of abstract entities, led to a precise but highly unusual metalogic. His strictures on correctly distinguishing use from mention of expressions, his canons of correct definition, and his mereology, have all informed the logical mainstream, but the majority of his logical views and innovations have not been widely adopted. Despite this, his influence as a teacher and as a motor for logical innovation are widely acknowledged. He remains one of logic's most original figures.
extracted from this :
- 4Ontology as a personal worldview?Does anyone know of writing and scholarship that has viewed ontology as a personal worldview?
these are the publications:
- Stefan Gruner added an answer:15What are the impacts of Ibn Rushd?Google has celebrated Ibn Rushd several days ago. I would like to know your valuable insights about the significant contributions of Ibn Rushd in philosophy and literature?
If you study the scholarly secondary literature about Master Eckhart (medieval German philosopher theologian and mystic), you will find many comments concerning the influences of Averroes onto Master Eckhart's thoughts.
- Closed account added an answer:17Does philosophy need a language that admits of no contradictions?Some philosophers/mathematicians (e.g., Tarski) laid some emphasis on construing a language that does not admit of contradictions, and were even ready to pay the price (if you want to call it thus) of excluding semantic terms and the like. I came to ask myself if it is actually a problem (rather than an advantage) of a language that it is able to express many things (including contradictions). What do you think?
- Closed account added an answer:4What has been and what will be the impact of research on the prefrontal cortex on philosophy?Over the past two decades or more, much has been learned about the PFC, but many people do not seem to have incorporated this new knowledge into their philosophy of human life.
Still, dear Mckinney, you blame everything on the neocortex... with your neocortex.
- 7Do current academics leave room for anymore "renaissance (wo)men"?Are there pressures within our educational systems that work against the development of academics and thinkers who delve broadly across disciplines in their research and writings? Does specialisation ensure that we all all reading and thinking narrowly within our disciplinary areas or does the open access of information across the internet mean that we are all becoming more interdisciplinary? I would be interested to hear your thoughts.
open access of information across the internet does not lead to interdisciplniarity , unfortunately the idea of '' focus '' on certain special disciplines in our educational settings has created a host of misconceptions malpractices and myopic shallow mentalities , it has provided our academicians with the loophole of ignorance about other disciplines even fundumendal disciplines like psychology and philosophy. Hence lack of knowledge about even relevant fields of study is , bitterly ironically, a sign of academic development and such ''scholars'' can promote their career with impunity and accolade .Following
- 12Can anyone refer me to work about Ayn Rand and feminism?
I am looking for scholarship exploring Rand's attitude towards feminism as expressed in her publications, novels and philosophy. I would also like to be referred to any feminist or anti-feminist work about Rand.
here are the publications:
- Antonio Lucero added an answer:37Does society require a majority of conformists?Some neuroscientists claim that about 15% of society are innovators - people who are not satisfied with the status quo. The other 85% need to be conformists in order that society maintains stability. What do you think? And in which group do you belong?
Polymath people - People who have the creativity of the arts AND have the math and science "chops" are the ones we need.
As happened during WWII and the Cold War: When a society feels (or is really) threatened by a technologically advanced adversary, then it will look for and support those who can innovate and make breakthroughs - regardless of their academic pedigree.
It is a sad commentary to claim that we need war (or the threat of war) for our modern societies to support and promote the "nerds" to save our asses!Following
- Gerardo Vicente Estrada added an answer:3What is life/ What is right or wrong in life?WHAT IS LIFE?
Experiential learning with awareness is human lif'e.
We need to live life with full awareness of what we are doing and what is the outcome of our actions/ karma.We can not escape work/ karma , so let us learn while doing.
What is right or wrong in life?
Let us understand our natural tendencies and once we are aware about that, we can control them and steer ourselves along the righteous path.Righteous path is one in which we look at the universe as one family- caring for others, sharing our knowledge and experience i.e. living in harmony with love for all beings .Let us serve the universe(God’s nature) with devotion as per our pure nature.
Aristoteles y Kant?Following
- Carmen Wrede added an answer:33What is the relationship between Plato's Cave and Gilbert's Barrier?
Plato’s Cave: see Plato’s “The Republic” (514a to 520a) or just the Wikipedia entry
“The human soul uses reason, sees many things, investigates many more; but, however well equipped, it gets light and the beginnings of knowledge from the outer senses, as from beyond a barrier -- …”
(William Gilbert, De Magnete, 1600 AD)
Are Plato and Gilbert essentially referring to the same subjective phenomenon and the same objective reality? If so, which is more fundamental, the subjective phenomenon or the objective reality? Is there major disagreement between the two, or are they merely offering somewhat different interpretations of the same subjective evidence? Or what?
NB William Gilbert was an English physician, natural philosopher and early experimental scientist in the reign of Queen Elizabeth 1 of England. He particularly studied magnetism and wrote an influential book thereon from which comes this quotation.
Sorry, I didn't put attention on the fact you linked your question with keywords like "history of the past" but was rather concentrated on what you asked. In that case I understand your trouble as well as Andrey's critics.Following
- Manuel Morales added an answer:10Universe's systematic description, epistemological dualism between Relativity/Quantum Mechanics and 'a priori' knowledge.
How can Quantum Mechanics explain the connection between matter, antimatter and gravitation, while being respectful of the (phoronomic) rules of general relativity? How can the connection between 'continuum' and 'discrete' be explained according to the epistemological model of a 'classical' theory?
Although my invite for research contributions are initially focused towards grade school children, I invite my colleagues here at RG to feel free to participate as well (see link).Following
- 99+What role has anticipation in consciousness?
Philosophers says the brain is an anticipation machine. I miss this statement in the present discussions of consciousness on RG. Is there any interrelation of consciousness, Qualia and anticipation?
Predictor-corrector filters used in tracking for example (eg Kalman statistical filters) can be seen as "anticipating" a receivable response. If they anticipate wrongly then they must apply a further correction. In real-time/ control based systems the prediction mechanism is a form of anticipation. Thus the existence of anticipation implies convergence mechanisms in thought. (AI planning systems are often seen in these terms - particularly with plan repair cycles). The key point is that AI systems must always handle realtime control issues and then as they evolve they can build evermore elaborate models (anticipating) and then test reality to prove their model. Thus control evolves into thought and science. AI systems are anticipation engines or AI systems use convergence mechanisms with live input - these two are somehow equivalent.Following
- Laurence Edward Hooper added an answer:4In Medieval philosophy, how did Bernhard of Chartres comment in his Glosses on Plato and Plato´s Republic?
Bernhard of Chartres says in his Glosses on Plato, that such an ideal state cannot exist in this world. Is this now his own opinion, or does he refer to Republic IX 592ab? Because: As far as I know there was no copy of the Republic in his time, only Calcidius' Timaeus. So how could he refer to the Republic in such a detailed way?
The answer to your question is most probably that Bernard is referring to a passage in the Republic that he does not know directly but has seen quoted in one of the many authors listed in the previous answer. If I were trying to find the exact source, I would refer to the work of Stephen Gersh and Peter Dronke. Here are two starting points.
- Ferenc Hörcher added an answer:18Is Hume’s ‘progress of the sentiments’ to be understood as ontological or historical?
In his Treatise, Hume refers to "a progress of the sentiments" (Book III, Sec. II). As I understand this, he takes it that we may develop a bona fide commitment to justice such that it can supplement or even contravene the private interests that originally gave rise to it (i.e., justice being a product of artifice). I take him to be making an ontological claim here rather than a historical one, particularly as he appears to regard our “suppos’d state of nature” as "mere philosophical fiction". Is there an alternate interpretation?
Dear Mariane, I agree with your description of book one: indeed it starts our from epistemological questions, and arrives at ontological ones.
- Oscar E. Quiros added an answer:2According to Rancière, aesthetics would be an option for a sensitive platform for action (inter) disciplinary?Recently, different areas of scientific knowledge has subverted its boundaries acting to cope with the demands of contemporary society. What are the different interdisciplinary strategies used by different social actors, especially in the area of education?
Your statement and questions appear to be fixed a-priori, thus it is difficult to comment on them because your premises are not facts. As von Germeten indicated before, it would be better if you are more specific. And hopefully do not base a question based on suppositions. It could be an interesting topic of discussion if correctly approached.Following
- Geng Ouyang added an answer:43Researchers should be philosophers or have a matter of logic. What do you think?In our trip looking for the truth, does researching depend on philosophy or needs logic, and on the other hand, should all facts depends on logic?
Very good idea, Ms. Jeanan Shafiq!
Theoretical things are expressed by words; and the carriers of the theoretical things are expressed by actions------ words, choices, responsibilities..Following
- Andrew Messing added an answer:5Does the term "stochasteon" (στοχαστέον) that arises at Topics VIII 5 have some normative role in this passage?
The term appears in the first sentence of Topics VIII 5: "are evident now which should be (στοχαστέον) the goals / objectives of the respondent." And then Aristotle introduces a disjunction: every proposition put by the questioner must be either generally accepted (and that "generally" seems to appeal to the justification / rationale of the respondent) or generally rejected. After that follow the consequences of accepting or rejecting a proposition, namely that if the respondent accepts or rejects, must also assume that there is a total acceptance or total rejection, ie, it must stand as a kind of "universal respondent". After Aristotle also discusses the relationship between acceptance, rejection and relevance of propositions. My question is about the beginning of discussion to establish some normative way of thinking about the goals of the respondent.
Either I desperately need to brush up on my Greek or I am getting something else confused here. The line Φανερὸν οὖν τίνων στοχαστέον τῷ ἀποκρινομένῳ, εἴτε ἁπλῶς ἔνδοξον εἴτε τινὶ τὸ κείμενόν ἐστιν begins part 6 (159b 36).
More interestingly, we have in this line two important and scarcely analyzed aspects of Greek grammar in this one line. Pheneron, the lexeme beginning the line, is one of several words commonly used in Greek in impersonal constructions ("it appears...","it seems", etc.). Impersonal constructions have, alas, received too little attention in General, let alone in analyses of classical Greek. An exception (of sorts) is Bauer's Archaic Syntax in Indo-European: The Spread of Transitivity in Latin and French, which aims to demonstrate that PIE was a language of the active type. One piece of evidence proffered concern the relative ubiquity of impersonal constructions in IE language (Es gibt, c'est, il est, there is, etc.) compared to their absence, at least in any readily comparable way, in non-IE languages. In Classical Greek, impersonal constructions are tied into a sort of fledgling modal system and show tell-tale signs of grammaticalization. For example, some common impersonal verbs appear only as such or almost always do: δεῖ, χρή, and ἔξεστι.
Both –τέος/ τέον are modal inflectional affixes which “experiment la modalité de l’obligatif, où l’exécution de l’action verbale est présentée comme obligatoire" (Duhoux's Le Verbe Grec Ancien). They two are part of a Greek modal system and in particular one that I have come to refer to as prepontic modality (indicating/denoting suitability, propriety, and frequently blending with modal domains concerning obligation or necessity).
It should be understood, then, that στοχαστέον cannot be adequately treated as a lexeme, as it is far more schematized and appears as an impersonal construction within another impersonal construction, both creating epistemic distance (profiling he statement as true/fact independent of the author). I would argue that the line is better translated as something close to "it is clear how the answerer should reply", treating στοχαστέον as semantically bleached. Perhaps this is taking it too far, but the important point is that the double impersonal modal constructions must be interpreted via the modal domains they construe. The force of the opening clause is not simply what is evident or apparent but what is clearly required or obviously necessary.
The rest is fairly straightforward, as we have a list of rules concerning when a premise should be responded to as such. The first rule ("ἢ ἔνδοξον εἶναι ἢ ἄδοξον ἢ μηδέτερον") is not general acceptance vs. non-acceptance, but a tautology. Either the statement is accepted, or it isn't, or neither. Non tertium datur doesn't even hold here, as Aristotle is concerned with covering all possibilities. This is not true of the next condition which necessarily holds: relevancy. Either the premise is or isn't relevant and now there is no third way. And so on.
But the opening line uses grammatical (or highly schematic/schematized and at least partially grammaticized) means to convey the necessary/obligatory and obvious state of affairs the answerer finds herself or himself in give any premise.Following
- Marcel M. Lambrechts added an answer:14Is 'optimal' science terminology required in science practice?
In many research projects, phenomena are briefly observed, for instance to minimise impacts of human presence following observation or monitoring. For instance, phenology of nest construction in small box breeding passerines consist of several building stages, of which one is described as a 'pile of moss' expressed before the nest foundation is finished. The definition of this nest building stage is most often based on an individual impression without counting or measuring moss fibres. A 'pile of moss' therefore represents a human-invented class potentially reflecting numerous physical expressions of what observers name 'a pile of moss'. Does empirically measurable science terminology result from trade-offs between costs and benefits related to detail of measurement? Perhaps there is an 'optimal' science terminology that takes costs and benefits of measurement procedures into account. For instance, scientists might take the time to measure every detail of 'a pile of moss'. However, more detailed studies can substantially increase time or energy-expenditure devoted to measurement, and may have consequences for life-history stages following monitoring of a pile of moss (e.g. final nest structure, onset of egg laying, clutch size, ...).
'Optimal' terminology taking costs and benefits of science measurement procedures into account would obviously express spatiotemporal variation. It also can explain why methods differ across publications dealing with the same scientific topic (e.g. avian nest building).
Is science terminology exact/precise enough?Following
- Mohammad Firoz Khan added an answer:8The universe: Superstructural alienation?
Also one might think this is a joke I have already seen such a discussion. Unfortunately linked to physical discussions which maybe did arise out of a misunderstanding of the word "superstructure".
However even we don't know yet much about the superstructure of the universe and much of what we can direct our thoughts to and it might for sure be extremly hypothetical obviously some people already want to discuss this topic and for this it could be worthy to ask ourself:
How could superstructures of the universe be linked to Marx idea of superstructures? How could it affect the base?
Literature and movies already seem to be ready to think about "new superior relations of productions" and they mostly describe a dystopic world in which we ultimately are going to ruin ourselves by the inventions we make. Either by improperly handling or totaly willing by minority groups. Likewise in 1984 we look mostly unlikly to do something against this box of pandora we opened. But as we are talking about superstructures this is all brought to a total new level of questions. The big question: What choices do we have?
In the end it seems to be a question of cognition vs. feelings. F.e. hubristic scientific work vs. bounds we have with family and friends. To whom is it in the future directed to what we do?
Are our ethical standards sufficient to face up to whatever we are going to invent? Or should we maybe learn this time from history and be a little bit faster? What new standards are you expecting when it comes to sciences?
From Scott’s observation “Interesting that you note that sci-fi describes a dystopia of "new superior relations of production." Sci -fi movies must currently employ "new superior relations of production" between live action and animation. If science fiction's vision is the base, then the movie production is a superstructure which curiously creates an economic base and superstructure, a movie industry and a Hollywood lifestyle.”
And from Carmen’s quote, "The benefits of a collaborative relationship are clear. For filmmakers, science advisers add a sense of realism and legitimacy to their creative vision. But perhaps even more important, scientists provide a window into the clear array of real-life science stories that are happening around us every day - all of which have the capacity to provide the inspiration for fresh, unique, and compelling narratives.
And for scientists, The Exchange offers an opportunity to expand the reach of their work, moving their research out of the lab and into the public eye, offering the promise to improve attitudes toward science and galvanizing interest in further discovery."
I draw conclusion, that Si-fic not only create base and superstructure of “movie industry and a Hollywood Lifestyle” but also superstructure of “Science” in putting goals of it and determining its direction of progress as religion and establishments, ethics etc. guide capitalist economy.
Also see the link which has reference t0 Einstein as well as some interesting opinion about dark matter: