About Laitman's text
I have mainly 2 things to object.
1st:
the great idea of the text is that there is an unity in language and that the difference between scientific language and ordinary language or between philosophic language and ordinary language is a difference of degrees (levels). More and more, i really don't think so.
The unique common points beetween these languages (and others) is probably that there are languages (and probably the fact that there is language is unique but it is not enough to say that language is unique).
Therefore, i don't think that natural languages (i.e our "ordinary languages") are loosing their accuracy to the outer world or to the objects of science (if it is really the outer world which is the object of science, which is something with what i disagree... but that's the second problem of the text). Because it is something they never have. Since its first beginning science has ever used its own language or more exactly has ever been a proper language apart from the others. It is one of the reason in Ancient times scientifics were often members of esoteric sects (in Aegypt, Mesopotamia and even Greece), because they needed a language that was not the ordinary language. Mathematical and formal logical languages are born from this need.
2nd:
I agree that there are two parts of studies in science, a formal (theorie's making) and a material (experiment). this is more or less a classical distinction since Aristotle. But i disagree about the meaning of experiment that is in this text. Why because it seems to say that scientific experiment is a way of access the reality of the outter world. Maybe it is (it is a really difficult problem indeed), but if it is, it is not in any case direct access.
What is doing experiment in science in a large meaning? Something much humbler that saying something abut the reality of the outter world, in a way. Verifying that the fact/phenomen born from the theory is not contradictory (or at least too contradictory) with the theory, because if it is it means the theory should be changed.
Is this fact born from the theory a reflect of the outter World. We don't know. We can hope it is but we don't know. At least science doesn't know. And its not truly its problem.
About the 4 questions i asked as a starting point
1) are these fields handling the same objects?
No. I think I have already try to explain why.
quite ironically i think that there is a god in science, a god in philosophy and a god in religion. (I don't say i'm believing). But it is not the same god. God in science is a theory. God in philosophy is an end. God in religion is a person. Not the same object.
2) may these fields coexists "peacefully"?
Certainly. They may and they can. But it begins with understanding "correctly" what these fields is doing. It is probably not so easy because science has become much more complex it was. And probably philosophy too. If the objects were the same the answer would be no, Imo.
3) are we in a time where a kind of "belief" in one of these fields (actually science) excludes both others?
I don't think so. If there is a field that excludes the others it is probably more philosophy. Why? because philosophy search to unit different things under a global word (logos) and has never really questionned the meaning of what was truth for it. Science has.
Anyway "factually" XXIth century seems to be a century of religious sects more of science beliefs or philosophy's apogee.
4) has the relationship which is uniting/differing these fields has changed with history?
It's the most difficult question. The concepts i used comes from recent developpment in science. But i think it's retroactive in some ways. As for the Historical differences that were underlined by Alrik and Glance there are real but what is there objects. I think it is more about the perception auto-perception of the scientist than about scientifical practice.
Last edited by MASTER_GUROTH; 06/02/05 03:50 PM.
