jehms at globalxs.nl
Sun Jun 1 21:50:33 UTC 1997
Op 30-mei-97 schreef Vidyasankar Sundaresan:
thank you for your elaborate answere
you made your point very clear except on one issue: the different sorts of
i don't think reductionism, according to which one science explains the
axiomas, thoerical terms and basic fenomena of another, is a tenable point of
view. on the contrary: i agree with Peter Winch ('The idea of a Social Science
- Routl & Kegan Paul 1958): there's a fundamental difference between
object-sciences and social-sciences. i think there is an equally fundamental
difference between those two and linguistic sciences like philogy and
i had antropology, philology and semiology in mind when i defended the right
of science to investigate religious phenomena and texsts.
>In one sense, science is treading on areas traditionally considered the
>domain of religion. This is because science is also starting to pose
>the ultimate questions. The great number of books drawing parallels
>between quantum physics and "Oriental mysticism" (whatever that means) are
>a testimony to that. And in almost a century of quantum mechanics, no
>serious physicist yet claims to know all the answers.
i would reckon those texts as scientific ones. even Capra's view on physics
have been severly criticised by experts, let alone his hopelessly romantic
view on oriental mysticism
>That could probably be because physicists and educators deliberately
>decide not to worry about philosophical implications of quantum mechanics,
>or else one could never get any quantum physics done. But if you look at
>the history of quantum mechanics, famous problems and paradoxes in the
>theory were seen as things worthy of investigation, precisely because
>scientists like Bohr, Heisenberg and Einstein had their own
>*philosophical* attitudes about the implications of quamtum physics.
>Haven't you heard of Einstein's quip, "God does not play dice" and the
>retort, "Don't tell God what to do"? Things like determinism, causality,
>free will and choice played a huge role in the early controversy between
>Einstein and the others.
of course, but inthis case Einstein's religious feelings were disturbed by
implications of scientific developments. i wouls say this is very human, but
not very philosophical. if he had read Nietzsche he would not be that
>> i've heard even of ironic theologians who have lost
>> all concern about the existence of god.
>They are in the good company of the Indian pUrva mImA.msakas!
it's a pity most theologians prefer Barth to BhartRhari
More information about the INDOLOGY