I surmise epistemology need some relativism as each time new great science theories make some breaks with actuals paradigms... those lasts maked the same before. Best scientists are not just methodologists... they have a great imagination... and something defintly not in the engineer spirit... I will not compare the two with each other !
Look at the Pr Benvenist research than Pr Montagnier (who find the VIH virus: Nobel) continue today....
oh s....t I'm on the Godwin point too
Look at the Pr Benvenist research than Pr Montagnier (who find the VIH virus: Nobel) continue today....
oh s....t I'm on the Godwin point too
Last edited:
But has the water a memory ?
In the last film of Montagnier Professor : they reccord with a mic and 16 bits/ 44 Mhz (seen into the movie) the waves of ADN in neutral water and the replay its at 1000 kms in a chamber closed with permallow to replay it ? : so it is A/N then N/A because the reccording file is sent to an independant laboratory to make the experiment with a new neutral pure water !
Here they have no consideration about Chesky science of reccording or TAD for replaying the file.... and it works (?!) : water stocks informqtions in the quantic size between the atoms....
Montagnier said Nature review was not ready to listen the research of Benvenist Professor because they were in the denial position... but a fact is a fact in science, and then a theory can be predicted with always the same result with expérimentations : you have a prove and a sign to continue in this good direction....
Copernic, Bruno, Galileooooooo mamamia !
In the last film of Montagnier Professor : they reccord with a mic and 16 bits/ 44 Mhz (seen into the movie) the waves of ADN in neutral water and the replay its at 1000 kms in a chamber closed with permallow to replay it ? : so it is A/N then N/A because the reccording file is sent to an independant laboratory to make the experiment with a new neutral pure water !
Here they have no consideration about Chesky science of reccording or TAD for replaying the file.... and it works (?!) : water stocks informqtions in the quantic size between the atoms....
Montagnier said Nature review was not ready to listen the research of Benvenist Professor because they were in the denial position... but a fact is a fact in science, and then a theory can be predicted with always the same result with expérimentations : you have a prove and a sign to continue in this good direction....
Copernic, Bruno, Galileooooooo mamamia !
Last edited:
I am sorry but the term "epistemology" is not included in any officialy recognised Academical Hellenic Language lexicon in Greece. So it is a "crooked" invention of an English-speaking. I don't know who... it would be an invention yet of a person with Greek roots.
I know what you try to say using "epistemology", but the closest officialy recognised term by Hellenic academic community is "gnoseology" which means in English: theory of knowledge.
As you could understand, in the same manner "epistemology" = theory of... science.
Epistem exactly means: I study something thoroughly.
Sincerelly, in my 55, first time i saw or i heard this term.
Thank you.
I read some of Brian Josephson's writings about the Benveniste saga - very interesting, a few links are on here about halfway down.
Brian Josephson's home page
Brian Josephson's home page
The oxford dictionary defines "epistemology" as just that - the theory of knowledge.
Incidentally, theory of knowledge (or TOK) is a core part of the International Baccalaureate Diploma Programme (my wife used to teach it). I really think it should be part of the UK A-levels and US AP tests as well, but fortunately the epistemology 101 courses at universities compensate for the lack of it.
Very strange, this word is very common and a party of the modern philosophy learned in all the universities ?
The best translation is the Phylosophy of Science : it's about the mechanisms of the knowledge in science and not "a" theory of knowledge like the kantism or Husserl Phenomenologia can be or a faith like psychanalism could be !
It can talk about ethic and Science; mechanism of finding in science; what is the facts to talk about science and not something close that corrupt the word : its methodology; the history of science and its interaction with humanity and other party of knowledge: sociology, economy, progress, etc...
E.G. : evey one know here than we talk about science when first we construct a theory and test it with experiments who verify the prédictions... and not the opposite. Science and Engineery are too often close in the words of people...
The resolution of this thread has now fallen to a level that qualifies it for entry into "The Lounge". Thread moved.
soon we'll need subdivisions in "the Lounge" because of the number of threads moved there
You got it Jan : this is Epistimology which is a modern part (XIX century ? or XX century ? : don't remember) of philosophy. But when Kant is trying to close what can be understood by human brain or not is already a corpus which can be puted (partially) in Epistimology... even if it's not about Science. In Science, this is not about brain properties but firstly about Nature mechanism on which we experiment to verify if the theory (our understanding) is good or not. Then we make only Tools and application for and from that !
We have more a conversation here about semiology :btw that's what our greek friend fellow does...
I'm sure here they are some philosophy teachers.....
We have more a conversation here about semiology :btw that's what our greek friend fellow does...
I'm sure here they are some philosophy teachers.....
Last edited:
Thank you Jan for the etymology of this word!
I was in search for 20 minutes to find the word or synthetic term "lich" without success. Yes, the "Lehre" exists.Argh we are on the Loundge... we are moved and closed "Under the Dogma" : http://www.google.fr/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CD4QtwIwAw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DeusUHyZaBVs&ei=nHL8U-6_D4nT0QXb14DoDA&usg=AFQjCNGFY3y6GzvKWVCp_WqWPSDUiWVJFw&bvm=bv.73612305,d.d2k
I read the article at length now and I can't see how it's relevant.
Aren't you the one here which keeps displaying a desire to ridicule? Like some fifty times now?
How many snide remarks have I made in here?
Zero, I think.
Anyway I asked if you have evidence to the contrary, so?
I'm not using a "gallileo gambit" or whatever you were vaguely referencing.
You avoided my question about aiming for performance and theoretical design far higher than the tested listening thresholds as well.
Last edited:
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.