We note But anfibologica nature of the problem: if one part 1) Descartes argument dell'imprescindibilità challenges the basis of a theoretical core that determine the beginning and once and for all, the many directions that a technical act becomes conscious of its scope in completing a design already inscribed in the original plan, part 2) Descartes himself not only admits that the party immediately practice can play a decisive role in scientific discovery, but let it be precisely the same improvisation manual completely at the mercy of chance (ie the specific circumstances), a drag on the banks of scientific discovery. This second aspect is clear in the binocular where the invention is due to luck and experience of the telescope which is the fertile ground in which Descartes draws, as he writes, for the formulation of a theory of optics. This is implicitly indicating (Descartes, that is not explicitly looks like) that, first, the technique is chronologically earlier than the science (the theory is only after the practice), and, secondly, the same technique is not the product of theoretical premises: the result is fortuitous, that is always contingent and context-bound, a set of practical circumstances.
Here is what Descartes writes in the incipit of Dioptrics :
"A shame our sciences, however, this invention, as useful and worthy of admiration, you should not at first that the experience and luck. "(Descartes, AT 81, trad. com. 1983, pp. 187-188) .
However, since the brand new telescope built by Descartes has revealed some shortcomings in the operation, it was loaned to scientific analysis (by Descartes) who wrongly credited to the conditions of effectiveness of the new discovery physical laws are already in the manual of good scientist (in this case the telescope, Descartes infers the size and shape of the lenses by the constant light).
If there is then a chronological priority of practice over theory, theory (or science) does not act by then a mere recipe for the success that can then be used to "map" for future applications. On the contrary, it is a question on the conditions of technical failure carried out by the Act, an act unconscious and free of any constraint stainless theoretical initial trigger. And nothing prevents you from saying that this is a precedence of earlier theoretical character even chronological knowledge is not part of the theoretical foundation, but from practice. The latter is the conditio sine qua non of the human cognitive process, where the science takes over at the time of the act sets out a practical failure unexpectedly.
0 comments:
Post a Comment