Re truth in science

[Paolo Ramat]

Dear LinguistList aficionados,
arn’t we going to astray from the original question raised by Frans? As he says in his last message, “Calm down everybody”! We are talking  about Truth (or truth ?), pragmatism, science(s), theology etc. -and lesser about linguistics. But may be du Marsais was right in stating “...il seroit à souhaiter que ceux qui enseignent la grammaire fussent philosophes. Les grammairiens qui ne sont pas philosophes ne sont pas même grammairiens”, Chesnau du Marsais, Les véritables principes de la grammaire, ou Nouvelle Grammaire raisonnée pour apprendre la langue latine, Oeuvres I, Paris 1797, 206.

Best,
Paolo

°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°
Prof.Paolo Ramat
Università di Pavia
Istituto Universitario di Studi Superiori (IUSS Pavia)


From: Pedro Tiago Martins 
Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2014 5:56 PM
To: LINGTYP at LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG 
Subject: Re: Re truth in science

The question whether scientific theories are true is a classic in philosophy of science. A good way to start is to read about Laudan's pessimistic induction argument (Laudan 1981), read the critiques and support it received, and pick a side!

Pedro

On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 5:43 PM, Everett, Daniel <DEVERETT at bentley.edu> wrote:

  Loved this post and Edith’s last one. 

  Here is a very interesting, short statement from Rorty on Truth and a bit on Pragmatism. 

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzynRPP9XkY


  Great newspaper article, Frans. I want to buy that guy’s book.

  My son, Caleb, says the main thing he likes about being a professor is that it leaves you time for soccer/football (on the U of Miami campus).

  Dan

  On Mar 11, 2014, at 12:30 PM, Plank <frans.plank at UNI-KONSTANZ.DE> wrote:


    Thank you, Edith, and to continue along these lines, this is from the science quiz (apologies for the four-letter word) in last week's Observer or Guardian -- the newspaper (whichever) that not so long ago reported the non-existence of universal grammar, beating Edge.org to it.  

    True or false:
    5. Ni[e]ls Bohr – the father of sub-atomic physics and a true genius of the 20th century and possibly the brainiest man ever to walk the planet – used to be a professional footballer.

    Here's the answer about Niels, if you're really interested in the truth of the matter:

    True. He used to play in goal for the Danish side Akademisk Boldklub, and his brother played in mid-field (was so good in fact he played for Denmark). Everybody in Denmark loved Ni[e]ls, he was brainy, personable, an all round super star and national hero. So much so the Danish brewer Carlsberg built him a house and gifted him a lifetime supply of free beer. Hic.

    If it weren't for him, Uncle Al would never have been able to build the Boldklub Accelerator which reduces the size of atoms.

    Other notable if unlikely professional goalkeepers include Albert Camus (French existential novelist), Pope John-Paul 2nd (last Pope but one), Arthur Conan Doyle (creator of Sherlock Holmes) and Che Guevara (Cuban revolutionary).



    And here's no universal grammar:
    http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2012/mar/25/daniel-everett-human-language-piraha


    Calm down everybody. 
    Frans





    On 11 Mar 2014, at 15:09, Edith A Moravcsik <edith at uwm.edu> wrote:


      Danish physicist Niels Bohr said: "It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is. Physics concerns only what we can SAY about nature." (emphasis original)









-- 

Pedro Tiago Martins
PhD Student, Cognitive Science and Language
Universitat de Barcelona

http://sites.google.com/site/ptsgmartins
http://bib.biolinguistics.eu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20140311/75e1a0a6/attachment.htm>