Some illiterate morons like starving acevedito, who wants to persuade and convince yourself himself (in his own insecurity of being unable cowardly) to be a "thinker" (in vain, of course, since their delusional little speech are typical of the deep philosophical jargon ... Mery Poppins) spits us your Finally pataphysical vomiting (he learned in the Encarta) that philosophy is nothing less than the mother of science (sic) using as a mantra the stupidity of the new science began with Galileo (XVI century) with little question about "how" processes occur (which apparently is the only question that can be answered by science), because the question on "why" of things would be the responsibility of the metaphysical blah bla.Refutación bla: "Apparently this ignorant big head does not take into account, as we rightly said Gustavo Bueno, the ideas of philosophy are systematic constructions resulting from the dialectic of individual categorical science concepts (geometry, astronomy , acoustics, etc..) and worldly knowledge and technical (social, political, etc.), which implies that science and knowledge, from which emerge the concepts are prior to the philosophical categories to which they gave rise, ergo science and knowledge are the matrix from which emerged the philosophy as knowledge of second-degree foundation is science, and science without philosophy would be impossible to be based science or philosophy would be an unfounded and unscientific sophistry filosofastrería as unintelligible jargon and mangy of Heidegger, for instance ;-). hopefully this obrerito "Flintstones" in the build not you can think of playing at being an architect, since it seems this jerk is capable of laying the foundation of the work (science) ... once the building (philosophy) only to see the structure collapses due to its alleged "genius" architect chanta ;-).
He notes that this orangutan has no idea of \u200b\u200bthe history of science no less than the history of philosophy (although, yes, I am told their masters of the zoo this ape is a fine taster of bananas and peanuts ... well, something that your instincts serve as MONIL ;-)), at the time of the Presocratics, when he gave his first steps philosophy and science were like geometry (systematized by Euclid), astronomy (the predicted eclipses and Aristarchus of Samos developed a heliocentric model), acoustic (Pythagoras discovered the mathematical relationship between the length of the vibrating string and tone issues) and technical and the molten metal, forging weapons, textiles, medicine, architecture, surveying, etc. that posibilitaronel emergence of philosophy and the "geometry of ideas "(phrase inspired by the science of geometry to be precise) of the Greek philosophers who also made contributions to science: Such developed his famous theorem and measured the height of the great pyramid based on the length of its shadow, Pythagoras proved his famous theorem, discovered irrational numbers and made contributions in acoustics, Aristotle systematized logic and made discoveries in zoology, etc.. to Plato gave great importance to the mathematical sciences, the foundation of his philosophy, so far as to send to record on the frontispiece of his academy his famous "no man may not know geometry." For above shows that both the stupidity of acevedito that in the beginning "of time? was the philosophy and then (sixteenth century) science as the arcade there was no science before Galileo (sic) are nothing more than pure piss asshole marijuana in the very safe copy of the poor parts of this ass of Icarito, since both formal sciences like mathematics and logic (Aristotle's Organon) as factual science of acoustics, astronomy, zoology, botany (Theophrastus), Static (Archimedes), etc. predate Galileo (to Copernicus' heliocentric theory predates Galileo).
"With respect to the raspberry static science that Aristotle (sic) addressed the "what" and only advanced science when Galileo came up with the brilliant idea of \u200b\u200bkeeping to the "how" I would say that:
a) this asshole gym confused with magnesium, and one thing is the metaphysics of Aristotle and are quite another aristotelian empirical research in sciences such as zoology (which were recently overtaken by Linnaeus in the eighteenth century) characterized by answering the HOW and not just what, in Contrary to the claims of this charlatan simiesco.Por course, neither the metaphysics and physics of Aristotle were "static", as Aristotle took into account the motion of bodies (as Parmenides did not deny it) as demonstrated by the argument of the unmoved mover that sets in motion the rest of the phones (the unmoved mover being a device to not contradict the principle of Plato symploké), and regard to tidal movement of Aristotle's explanation is better than Galileo, and Aristotle argued that it was due to the influence of the sun and moon (in anticipation of Newton). Instead Galileo held the erroneous view that the tides were caused by the rotation of the earth ... (sic).
b) what science is only concerned with "how" is completely wrong, because science do not just descriptions of phenomena (how?), but want to give explanations of processes = describe mechanisms (Mario Bunge dixit) and explain a topic screens is just one mechanism why?. Indeed, metaphysics does not respond any reason (that science does), since who says hypostatize metaphysical content in the world says, and who does hypostasis commits a monumental fallacy of reification, and as a fallacy is an argument wrong, ergo no may be an explanation of anything or answer any why.
Conclusion: I gained and lost acevedita = thinker. Amen, "p
0 comments:
Post a Comment