tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post2615377573050348154..comments2024-03-04T05:55:35.225-05:00Comments on Vital Remnants: The Politically Incorrect Guide to Reality: Edward Feser's "The Last Superstition"Martin Cothranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16452612266051351726noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-12077717449410523042009-08-20T11:58:11.997-04:002009-08-20T11:58:11.997-04:00TomH,
I've never read Nancy Cartwright, so I&...TomH,<br /><br />I've never read Nancy Cartwright, so I'm not sure. Judging by her wikipedia page, it might be similar. Anything by her you would suggest?Thomas M. Cothranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07824873424225826685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-68963863166300198802009-08-20T00:31:43.366-04:002009-08-20T00:31:43.366-04:00TomH,
I have that book sitting here on my shelf, ...TomH,<br /><br />I have that book sitting here on my shelf, but have not read it. I generally mistrust writers like Pearcey because they take Francis Shaeffer's view of this issue which I think is mistaken. However, I do note that the index indicates she (and/or her coauthor) have read all the right books.<br /><br />Your post has prompted me to read it. Thanks.Martin Cothranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16452612266051351726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-47308994760298578202009-08-19T23:30:42.045-04:002009-08-19T23:30:42.045-04:00I really enjoyed your post. I would like to get y...I really enjoyed your post. I would like to get your opinion on the Pearcey/Thaxton book, <i>The Soul of Science</i>. Have you read it? It investigates the interplay of the various philosophical threads in the history of science.<br /><br />Thomas, didn't Nancy Cartwright say pretty much the same things that you said?TomHnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-79239959060149821442009-08-18T11:28:48.147-04:002009-08-18T11:28:48.147-04:00Kycobb,
At least people who wrote with quill pens...Kycobb,<br /><br />At least people who wrote with quill pens had the basic ability to understand what they were criticizing. Given that nothing you mentioned in your comment has any bearing on what I actually said, it might be a good idea to purchase one and see if it helps.Martin Cothranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16452612266051351726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-64674266078057114462009-08-18T11:01:48.688-04:002009-08-18T11:01:48.688-04:00Aristotle's definition of motion (the main top...Aristotle's definition of motion (the main topic in the Physics) was not force over resistance; Aristotle defines motion as the entelechia of potentiality as such. The examples he sometimes uses of particular motion (where force and resistance come up) don't play a crucial role in his overall argument.Thomas M. Cothranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07824873424225826685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-65212722420227230722009-08-18T10:34:43.622-04:002009-08-18T10:34:43.622-04:00Martin,
Lets see, mysticism is reason, science is...Martin,<br /><br />Lets see, mysticism is reason, science is madness, and Western Civilization has been in decline for nearly 700 years. Shouldn't you be writing with a quill pen instead of blogging?KyCobbnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-55123973261376115712009-08-17T22:58:17.644-04:002009-08-17T22:58:17.644-04:00Bill,
You haven't grasped the basic issues in...Bill,<br /><br />You haven't grasped the basic issues in Aristotle's Physics. I'd get a copy of the Sachs translation, as it has helpful explanatory notes concerning Aristotle's relation to modern physics. Aristotle's aims and approach work quite differently than those of modern, "mathematical" physics.<br /><br />To say that Aristotle had little interest in Thomas M. Cothranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07824873424225826685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-49496280056711445762009-08-17T21:42:11.331-04:002009-08-17T21:42:11.331-04:00What is often overlooked by postmoderns and modern...What is often overlooked by postmoderns and moderns is that Aristotle's Physics was pretty good, given what was both known and knowable at the time. There is a <i>reason</i> why heliocentrism was not empirically established until the turn of the 1800s. Keep in mind that almost nothing other than extension and weight could even be measured, although the medieval Aristotelians developed the TheOFloinnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14756711106266484327noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-28731067721953426902009-08-17T17:48:05.377-04:002009-08-17T17:48:05.377-04:00I agree that abandoning Aristotle's philosophy...I agree that abandoning Aristotle's philosophy was a huge intellectual mistake from which we have yet to recover, but let's not forget that much of the motivation for rejecting him lies in his disastrous anti-experimental physics. Why didn't Aristotle simply do some of Galileo's simplest experiments before he propounded silly physics ideas off the top of his head? Where do you Interstellar Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14609957210536917411noreply@blogger.com