Cladism and Higg’s particle-ism give a face to science going overboard
Conceptualization offers two consistent lines of reasoning:
1. subjectivity (called realism) and
2. objectivity (called nominalism)
- subjectivity assuming as an axiom that classes are real, and objectivity assuming as an axiom that objects are real.
Subjectivity was first explained by Parmenides, and objectivity was first explained by Aristotle. Both of these are inconsistent, but Plato fused objectivity consistently with the reality we percieve by his metaphore of us sitting in a cave wherein we can just see a shadow-casting of “the true reality” on the walls of the cave.
The winner was objectivity in Plato’s interpretation, as judged by the success for emprical science from Copernicus till how we teach it today in our public schools.
However, the newly arisen search for “the true tree of life” in biological systematics called “cladistics”, and the search in physics for “Higg’s particle” (ie, “the explanation of everything”) are actually involutions of objective conceptualization into subjective conceptualization (ie, realism) in an empirical framework, ie, a practical search for the inconsistency in and of subjective conceptualization. These two approaches are thus actually beliefs that have emerged within objective conceptualization (ie, nominalism) in that subjective conceptualization indeed can describe reality without contradictions (or ambiguities). They are thus searches for the impossibility which originally caused the split of subjective and objective conceptualization. These two approaches thus actually believe that the reason for the split between subjective and objective conceptualization, ie, the difference between class and object, can be found, ie, that the difference itself between these concepts can be found.
This difference, ie, between class and object, was shown by Bertrand Russell about a century ago (1901) to be a paradoxical contradiction. It means that these two approaches (ie, cladism and Higg’s particle-ism) actually are searches for a paradox. They have lost track of what they originally were talking about, instead having entered a pursuit of a dream. In this state, they are not even susceptible to rational arguments, but behave as a bolting heard of Wilderbeasts. They actually give a face to science going overboard into belief (or into falling in love with your theories).
I can just say that NO, NO and NO, belief is not consistent, but infinitely regressive, even if it’s dressed in scientific clothes. Science is not a belief, but a craft. It can produce truths, but it can’t find the truth. If it could, then the difference between class and object would not be a paradox (or, this truth would be a paradox).
No, there is no tree that grow up to the sky, not even science, even if there are people calling themselves scientists that have fallen into a belief that science does. This belief is nothing but a belief in one’s own belief, leading one anywhere, but always to a paradoxically contradictory stand point. It is actually a misuse of the tool “science”. It is the black hole of rationality. It is the erroneous belief that rationality has a single answer.
Another contribution to understanding of conceptualization http://menvall.wordpress.com/
2012-12-17 21:40:37
Source:
