From: "Damien Broderick" <email@example.com>
> Awww. If you're going to expect people to read *actual philosophers*, it's
> just plain *not fighting fair*.
Congratulations! You've just identified a major difference between science and
philosophy. Science occurs when people stop "fighting" and start finding out.
Reading actual scientists is a good way to begin (though, of course, actually
_doing_ science is the ultimate way to find things out). John Brockman has
resurrected the term "third culture" to refer to writers who have imposed a
bit of science into literature. I recommend his book _The Third Culture_ as an
excellent primer in this connection.
"Somewhere, something incredible
is waiting to be known."
Besides Isaac Asimov, Vannevar Bush is one of my favorites. Here's a link to
one of his essays:
As We May Think
Anyone on the list have any favorite science writers?
Useless hypotheses, etc.:
consciousness, phlogiston, philosophy, vitalism, mind, free will, qualia,
analog computing, cultural relativism, GAC, CYC, and ELIZA
Everything that can happen has already happened, not just once,
but an infinite number of times, and will continue to do so forever.
(Everything that can happen = more than anyone can imagine.)
We won't move into a better future until we debunk religiosity, the most
regressive force now operating in society.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:39:54 MDT