Noam Chomsky - "The machine, the ghost, and the limits of understanding"

Maybe off-topic, but Prof. Chomsky always mention how important Newton was in the history of science and how significant his giving up on the mechanical philosophy when he failed to explain gravity in a mechanical way, how "lowering the bar" was important to set a realistic direction for science. He has many lectures about it, I like this one: ▶ this video , one of the best lectures ever.

in “Translating Newton’s Principia” · View on HN

Chomsky's surprisingly insightful thinking on the limits of human knowledge, and the consequences: ▶ this video

in “Quantum tunneling makes DNA more unstable” · View on HN

Mechanical: the contact theory, that one thing can only affect another by being in contact with it e.g. the teeth of gears. Unfortunately, gravity ("spooky action at a distance") does not require contact, so the mechanical theory fails. Which can be stated figuratively as "the world is not a machine". "The machine, the ghost, and the limits of understanding: Newton's contributions to the study of mind" at the University of Oslo, September 2011 ▶ this video

in “Has Consciousness Lost Its Mind?” · View on HN

A mechanical universe was the prevailing theory at the time, because nothing else made sense. "Mechanical" meaning that for one thing to cause another, it had to be in physical contact (like the teeth of a cog). That theory has since been abandoned, and everyone now accepts action at a distance - which still doesn't make any sense. Noam Chomsky - "The machine, the ghost, and the limits of understanding" , 1½ hours ▶ this video [2012]

in “Troubled Times for Alternatives to Einstein’s Theory of Gravity” · View on HN

Unlikely. The main problem is that calling a tradition "non-scientific" or "not hard science" also has a pejorative meaning. And there's an unfortunate mystification of science as something other than a mode of inquiry, with its limitations and advantages. Plus, people gain funding by hitching themselves to the social respectability of science. In the case of psychology, they're studying something of great interest which happens to be far too complex for easy scientific study. (Take for example the physicist; once the object or system under study becomes too complex, it's tossed to the chemist, who in turn tosses overly complex things down the line...) (I've heard similar analysis from some scientists. I vaguely recall Chomsky recently gave a lucid explanation in his talk "The machine, the ghost and the limits of understanding: Newton's contribution to the study of mind", as well in a couple books he wrote. For his part, he thinks linguistics is in a pre-galilean phase. ▶ this video )

in ““Thinking about science leads individuals to endorse more stringent moral norms”” · View on HN