Doberman Dog Bed Size

WORDS WITH MUSIC - The domination-free discourse as a method

What language and ethics have in common?

a

In the "logical Propaedeutics" (1967), the "pre-school of rational expressions" the Erlanger philosopher Wilhelm Kamlah and Paul had suggested Lorenzen a pleasantly simple "beginning of philosophy": the introduction of words by pointing to one thing and the simultaneous utterance of the associated word - the "demonstrative" or "deictic definition".

by examples ("this is a bassoon) and counter-examples (no, this is not a bassoon, but a saxophone") will, as required, practiced until the student the word (the "predictor") correctly applies. The student has a piece that "language skills" acquired.
So we have a student-teacher model. But what if the student is stubborn? If it the authoritative curriculum is not interested? If he despises the bassoon, unpacks his guitar and sings:

We do not need no education

We do not need no thought control

Hey, teacher, leave them kids alone!

to avoid that word "bricks in the wall" to be that the Spirit is walled from the outside, should the educational zeal the teacher of the eagerness of the student facing. The teacher has to rely on the questioning of interest, the "criticism" of the student - a self-evident, even trivial for every enthusiastic teachers. With his critical interest are the students the teacher's "recognition" - a central concept in the social philosophy of Hegel.

Our task now is to find a method that produces the equal rights of "students" and "teacher" and created. We need a social symmetry in inventing words or reinventing or redefining or correcting or clarifying their meaning, etc., etc. This social symmetry of speakers and listeners is generated by rules for the exchange of roles between the teacher and the student role. What are the rules for this role reversal 'discourse Ballet'? That is what follows.

Let's make us a picture of the initial learning situation. (For us to stay out of the dispute over the instrument you want, we take the violin.)

The introduction situation is divided into three interaction steps:

(1), the Then-point of the initiator

(2 ) questioning the interest of the respondents

(3) the citation of the predictors by the initiator.

Only after the second step in this interaction, recognition, comes into the assignment of subject and predicator. Without mutual recognition, there is no language. (In the actual lesson one can imagine something like this: the students look interested and asks, "What's that?" He can blaspheme with a skeptical tone, "What are you doing back in this thing," etc. - But he must respond to the initiative, they respondi by his interest, they "reflect", otherwise it is failed, it is possible the initiator not to name the object) The pointing gesture can be a label (such as "my instrument"). or be replaced by a proper name (such as "Aurea", a violin, the Stradivarius built in 1710).

The result is an "elementary proposition" Aurea ε violin.

("ε" represents "is" estin from Greek to be. We have already a very complex philosophical word "being" to a simple source attributed. The "being" is the collection of all the things in the world chaos, we that differ we "recognize" because we can name them. It is often "being" confused with "matter", the total of all ability to distinguish things, although not, perhaps not, are distinguished).

An elementary proposition is called elementary proposition, because it is the nuclear element in the composition of complex sentences, the assembly of molecules set by logical operators. Logical operators are connectors of elementary propositions, such as AND, OR, IF THEN, but also the "negator" NOT, etc. (example: "outside ε rain AND outside ε cold") Of course, already assembled "kit" molecules further compounded be (example: IF ( outside ε Rain and cold outside ε) THEN outside ε smoothness). Conversely, the elementary proposition, the result of logical analysis, are broken down into the complicated statements until the end of an elementary proposition is empirically about the truth then, carries out investigations into the 'reality' can be decided.

Empirical research is thus the same process as the introduction of new words and distinctions, while it makes no difference to know whether only words that are already in use to be re-examined. Empirical as science is only slightly complicated, that the context of a word (or the so called Situation / Purpose) to other situations is explicit. This can be a description of the situation, such as the Vesuchsanordnung in the chemistry laboratory.

Before you can then start with empirical research in any subject of science, spelling and punctuation theoretical groundwork must first be made. This is the analysis of complex theoretical statements and hypotheses logically simple atomic sentences. The AND, OR, ... herausanalysiert be from the original description of the situation. The researcher asked, after he became aware of something strange, a little surprised about how the student, "this is ... what?", Then this unknown phenomenon, calling, distinctive to get on the track.

2 The domination-free discourse

The Logical Propaedeutics "by Kamlah and Lorenzen was aimed not so much to provide a simple teaching guide for language teaching, but to develop a methodology in support of scientific terminology. Scientific concepts must be understood by a large scientific community in the same way. It suffices here, that some two people on the consensual use of words, that would be private speech. The use of (scientific) predictors must be more "Prädikatorenregeln" clearly be normalized.
Under "Prädikatorenregel" understand Lorenzen / Kamlah additional agreements to the imported words, which serve mainly to illustrate the discriminatory power compared to other imported words. Something that has been predicted as a female, can not be predicted as male. Can you doubt it? What about chimeras? Takes this down to an adversarial by male and female do not enter the problem of sexual identity? http://www.heise.de/tp/r4/artikel/32/32268/1.html What is a bush, which is a tree? (The hobby gardener knows that a feral little plum tree from a bush is to be distinguished.) Who sets Prädikatorenregeln? And where does his authority?

An example of the dominance in determining the Wortbedeutungen1 - this time it's about the cello: In the turbulent days of German reunification was a British street musician with his instrument to pass the border controls in the luggage of the German Democratic Republic to West Berlin. It developed with the border officials following discussion Kafkaesque permission to call an instrument as the cello, which does not look like a traditional cello.

described the English musician little scatting, in a television interview his experience:

"I'm packing in the cello, and um .. she says that's not a cello. There are simply too many strings as'.
(Interviewer:) Why?
There are 19th
(Interviewer:) And how much has a cello strings?
There are normally four. Then I say, yes, I know it is not normal, but it's my cello, I have built themselves. About ten minutes is later, the boss of this woman, it says, 'This is not a cello. " I say, yes I know, but ... Come, go over there, it sounds'. If the main boss of the boss. He tells me very briefly, because, Head over '
(Interviewer:) Where?
In this study rooms. So we go there together, gate close, and he asks: 'What do you do' I say, I'm a musician, I played in the GDR and I just go to West '. He tells me: "Please unpack '. So, again. He says, 'This is not a cello. And you're not a real musician. " I have ... at this time I'm afraid. And then, suddenly get up, away, gate closed again. 10 minutes later, no, maybe longer, comes back to 4 people. The two that I've seen him, and even a new one. This, obviously, is a cello-playing policeman. They have sought him. Now comes the all four seats, behind the table, 'Please Play'! No movement on the face, gray, cold. ... Forty minutes since I've been waiting for, I do not know. Come back to the main boss, and he tells me, yes, ok, they can go '. I say yes, wonderful, really great, ok, my passport please! He says, no, no passport will be returned '. So I am there in the middle of Friedrichstrasse train station, all alone. And it was like a black hole. Can I go on? Without a passport? Can I go back? I must be in West! Then after 5 minutes or so is wife of duty, and she says, come!. And we go together very different direction, to West Berlin.
(Interviewer:) official channels ...
Yes, yes. And ... um ... my passport back, and then suddenly I am there in the West. "

It is not only the absurdly exaggerated caricature of real existing definition of power that the particularistic, arbitrary definition of word meanings, the" terms, "appear to be inadequate leaves. The philosopher Jürgen Habermas
criticized the "Erlanger school" this particularistic way of normalizing the use of the word and the word's meaning by "pedantic", one side certain Prädikatorenregeln. The pupil-teacher model is erntfernt him far from a universal concept of 'concept'. Habermas, however, is his idea of "domination-free discourse" by which the equal distribution of the power of definition is to be secured to all concerned. So here comes the training of communicative competence with the ethical demands for social equality.

And I would like Habermas are right. In particular, the transition from predictors of scientific terms must not depend on the arbitrary and subjective decision of the parties involved directly in this setting. It's also the question of how and why these parties for their power to define come? What legitimizes them to determine word meanings, we should take care of our language? Like any power politician knows, is the "occupation of terms" a key to power. Words structure the world and our perception of the world, words convey the distribution of power that was present in their definition, in all situations of their further use. Why do dictators prefer to be alone determine how and what their subjugated is reported - so that they confirm their submission in their own language, as in George Orwell's "Newspeak".

subjectivity stranger to realize is: we do things we do not really do we act neurotic. "Communicative competence" consists precisely in such a smuggled alien subjectivity from their own language, their own perception of the world, that is, to banish from one's own psyche. Communicative competence means the courage to use your own reason have. Communicative competence means: know thyself! Communicative competence means to realize the project of the Enlightenment.

also a scientific terminology may carry such original power distribution, as we can see an example of the term "market" in economics terminology - in one theoretical tradition (Austria and neo-liberal) is the "market" is defined as an event to exercise social and structural power, whereas in the other theoretical traditions (Anglo-Saxon neo) as an event for the neutralization of structural power, as a power-free discourse on the creation of social equality - not to be confused with substantive "sameness ". (see:. Freedom - market or not market power or not, that is the question)
As Wilhelm Kamlah and especially Paul Lorenzen himself has bitterly opposed to any axiomatic that any "not justified" preliminary Define have turned away from technical terms in the sciences is it very well in their mind, to remedy this situation by supplementing Prädikatorenregeln.

Paul Lorenzen himself has hinted in his late works one way: the production of general ideas by abstraction, by applying the equivalence relation. The equivalence relation is a method of logical-mathematical theory of relations.

The equivalence relation is composed of three sub-relations, which I would like to refer to all abstract only briefly (and only for experts) before it is illustrated below:

1) Reflexivity: X refers to X (Adam refers to Adam)
2) symmetry: X refers to Y and Y refers to X
3) Transitivity: If X refers to Y,
AND Y refers to Z,
, then X is based on Z

We apply these rules to the equivalence relation, by we'll get it as a kind of choreography for the change of position of the parties.

The actors in this "definition of ballet are: Adam, Bedam, Cedam. There are two positions: the initiative position (right) and the response position (left). The first scene of this definition Ballets, as seen above: Adam in the position of initiative, Bedam in the response position.

definition ballet, 1 Scene: (reflexivity)

In this scene creates an "elementary proposition", as described above.

exchange then Adam and Bedam their positions: Adam goes from the position of initiative in the response position Bedam response from the position in the initiative position.

Bedam shows it but not in the same violin, 'Aurea', had pointed to Adam. So it's not as if they had handed over the position change and the object. It is precisely therefore, produce a "universal concept", not a proper name. A proper name is associated with only a single object ('Aurea' really only this one violin by Stradivarius), a general concept, a predictor, however, is assigned to different individuals in the same way. A predictor called a "class" or a "lot" of things. Also would be effected by the change of perspective that the different, individual and subjective views are on the world and things in their harmonized. In our scenic view of the subjective views of Adams and Bedams are symbolized in the world respectively by "their" instrument. We

therefore assume for the performance of our definition of ballet that Bedam is also a great artist who is lucky enough to play on another famous instrument of Stradivari, the 'King George' to be allowed.

The 'King George' is a true individual by their fate. King George II gave it to one of his officers, who loved her so that he always carried with him - even at the Battle of Waterloo. Unfortunately, the brutality of the war takes no consideration, not even the most subtle of all the artist, the soldier was killed, but the "King George" the carnage unscathed.

definition ballet, 2 Scene (social symmetry)

first Step and 2 Step

go through this change of position, Adam and Bedam each other in a symmetrical social position. Their interaction is equally balanced.
This self-generated, mutually granted equal rights, each of the two the same opportunity to his "view of things" from the initiative in the position to be agreed importance of the predictors contribute and then with the communication capabilities of elementary propositions form - and also has each of them an equal opportunity, mutual initiative by his critical comments in his spirit to guide and correct them.

we refer again to the teacher-student model, which was from Pink Floyd "The Wall" as a criticism of bricking thoughts through words as bricks. The 2nd Scene of the definition corresponds to a ballet, criticized the opposite educational concept of project learning. This is not one-sided, bureaucratic and administratively determined "from above" to the curriculum and, underpinned by the threat of bad grades 'pulled' but the students themselves to develop their own initiative to learn from their own interests and needs, the teacher is helping them to achieve, and he also brings its educational control and direction. The student has the teacher as well as the equitable power to occupy the position of a learning initiative discourse, and their mutual recognition is symmetric, as equal to each other.

After this dance step "symmetry" have both Adam and Bedam assured each other that they use the word "violin" in a manner identical to that of the two elementary propositions

"'Aurea 'ε Violin "(initiated by Adam and confirmed by Bedam)

and

" 'King George' ε violin "(initiated by Bedam and confirmed by Adam)

the predictor, the general term" Violin " have created.

The general public, for allowing this general concept is now clear communication, but is now still a closed group: Adam and Bedam. Communicative competence is thus far only in the "small group" of Adam and Bedam.

How can this be universalized communicative competence, so that the communication ability can apply to all kinds of added next speaker and the listener, thus for a potentially unlimited communication community?

definition ballet, 3 Scene (social transitivity)

"Actually, the social transitivity three Steps:

3.Szene, Step 1

3.Szene, step 2

third scene, Step 3

As you can see, the participants are not in this discourse gleichberechtigt.Adam is two times the initiative position both against and in relation to Bedam Cedam. Cedam is however only in the response position, both to Bedam as against Adam. Bedam is an intermediary between the main initiator of Adam and the idiots in the round, Cedam. First come, first served basis, the devil takes the hindmost.

order to define the word meaning one side is dominated by the interests of Adams; Bedam its interests may also bring the initiative, but limited compared to only Cedam. Cedam must be satisfied with what Adam and allow him Bedam - or he must refuse the discourse entirely. These inequalities are valid only in the event that we have the social transitivity isolated and considered independently of social symmetry.

However, if the second Scene ( social symmetry ) played through before the 3rd Scene ( social transitivity ) is played by the definition of ballet, then the situation changed completely. If they anticipate each other already, they will repeat the 1.Szene syymmetrisch is regardless of who takes the initiative. If this is not anticipated, it can still be carried out easily after 1.Szene. After crossing "symmetry" is it totally irrelevant to enter the order in which Adam Bedam in the scene of social transitivity - Because they are already in the 2nd Scene, their mutual agreement made. Because they direct their views have made similar, they may represent each other to represent over Cedam. To practice the predictor "violin" It does not matter if Cedam first violin 'Aurea' or the violin 'King George' is shown and designated, and it does not matter whether Cedam first with the subjective view of Adam or the Bedam face is - these are indeed already been harmonized.

definition ballet, 3 Scene (social transitivity for symmetry - REPRESENTATIVE OFFICE))

OR

When Adam and Bedam is now possible with Cedam a common understanding on the meaning of the word "violin" to produce, then you can assume that they (or any of succeed) with each other discourse partners. You have enhanced their communication community to potentially infinite number of "dance partner". The predictor "violin" has become a universal general concept. This universalization can make anyone who has created through social symmetry, the ability to represent themselves or allow others represent to.

That has now not to say that such a "universal concept" is written into the lexicon for all time and is immutable. No - it can always be brought back to the beginning of the whole procedure. Crucial for a universal language are not the once produced and then carved in stone sign. It is the ability of the party, at any time engage in the Universalisierungsprozedur to dance the ballet new generalization. All it takes is the willingness of social symmetry over each.

exactly what Adam Smith wanted in his ethics, "Theory of Moral Sentiments " show us: a simple method to generalize our individual, subjective thoughts and way of looking at the world. This, he said we need a language and the language we succeed, our "sympathy" to show the fact that we put ourselves in the role of the other, to see things from his point of view - are in a symmetrical relationship ask him. Then we can, even in case of dispute, face a "neutral third party", the "casual observer" - again with the anticipation of the willingness of social symmetry. In this way, we will generalize our opinion, so it is understandable and can be obtained from any general consent.

Egg White Discharge 4 Days Before Period

Gödel, Popper and the empirical

Scientific hypotheses are "generalizations". They have the form

"For all x: x ε P".

generalizations differ from subjective-particulate single-statements you can make about again because of his personal life experience is limited, such as the country lore about the weather.
example of such a universal statement:

Adam said:

For all swans:

'this swan' ε know.

claims expressed colloquially Adam also: swans are always white feathers, and implied he says: there are no swans green, red, blue or black feathers.
How Adam say that? The philosopher Karl Raimund Popper says: Adam's allowed to, just so it can not forbid him, thoughts are free, Adam only makes use of his natural liberty. Only when someone proves to him that he is wrong in his assertion, he may, as a scientific statement say no more. In order to distinguish
science of just-so-therefore-talk, the scientist before Popper puts an additional task: he must be a method by which one can verify this claim empirically, that is, that they could prove to be incorrect.


is how such a "falsification" a general universal statement or hypothesis?


- "All swans" is, without exception, all the swans. So make Bedam, Cedam, Dedam, ... on to find a single counter-example to Adams to überpdüfen claim, thereby possibly refute. This is in our example, no lab, no statistical calculations, without complicated measuring equipment without Large Hadron Collider.

Bedam points to this:

Adam is right, the swan is white.
His claim is still legitimate.

Cedam points to this:

Adam is right, the swan is white.
(And divine, as at that)
His claim is still legitimate.

Dedam shows this:

Adam: Ooops ... I give my statement on
- IF that is really a swan!
(it might in that example to an incarnation of the devil, or who knows what else act ...)

Evidence that it is the black bird "really" a "Swan", it must run on a deeper level be. The level at which the alleged universal statement about the swans had been founded, the level of the feature was "color of the feathers." That this is not the decisive characteristic level of definitional criteria for the general concept "Swan" was delivered just demonstrated - which features one defined but this bird? At the moment of falsification breaks us off this word - now we know not what we are talking about. If we want to use the word "swan" on - and the real distinction of a species - we must find a new level of definition that allows both black and white copies. For this we have to change - on a deeper level feature. You have to know what you talking about after the falsification has the recent general term "swan" rocked.

So what is the necessary and sufficient criterion for feature "Swan", if not for the springs? This seems, in this example not to be more problematic: biologists tell us that criterion can be the mating ability of this black swan with a white swan, it may also be eg a Genvergleich. As a result, a characteristic can be determined by the general term "Swan" is set and the empirical allows the color variety of this species. This all seems plausible - but beware! We use here a Previous knowledge, this is a problem in this trivial example. Quite differently, this issue arises in unknown areas of research.

So much for the famous Popper Falsifikationstheorie.

Is this sufficient critical rationalism as a method of science?
The requirement that a "new feature level" for the valid falsification of a general universal statement must be connotes, is commonly overlooked you. The real philosophical problem is that this is the feature level, just as in Russell's set theory, like a Matryoshka pulled out of the larger. What kind of relationship to each other this feature levels? Are there causal relationships? If it Classifications relationships? Easily provides thereby a naive reductionism: the economy is based on the psychology, physiology, psychology, physiology, chemistry, chemical physics is based on ... until the brilliant idea that today's economic crisis by "theory could be derived from everything from the Big Bang ... This means that out of the situation of a successful falsification out you stumble innocently into a naive idea of order in the world, into a metaphysical ontology.

But modern science but just wanted to say goodbye to the metaphysics, right?

Later in his Life came Popper to argue with the idea that straight from alleged general generalizations are taken from a type of individual, almost metaphysical sphere, the "third world" of ideas, intellectual and cultural artifacts, today one could say, from the Google universe . There, they carry ideas selective struggle for survival, so to speak, the Google-ranking ... A question for thought is subject to the hypothesis of the Third World and the Faslsifikationstheorie? What would be the method that would be to subject this hypothesis Falsifikationsversuchen?
But it was precisely this problem of hierarchical levels of the general concepts to their solution in the first half 20th wanted to escape philosophers, logicians, mathematicians, - century was fought - and those of Popper, such as the members of the Vienna Circle. Or Popper has displaced the problems be?

The Critical rationalism - a solution that does not work - and why Gödel's fault ...
We have a situation: a claim that is not, as generally valid claim may be. It has something to do with the concept of truth - because the words "That's true," yes we can commit someone else to give us our faith and entprechennd Claim to act.

How to transform a baseless assertion that is in a true, universal claim? How do you establish truth?
This problem had been the late 19 Century and mathematics. But we had the problem not only in mathematics but in all the sciences. The old metaphysics had lost its credibility, the numbers were now no longer, as in the Pythagorean tradition, independent entities with mythical properties, but only words. What do these number words? This is crucial for the whole of mathematics, including for example whether a physicist to the calculations may rely on a nuclear power plant. The mathematician Leopold Kronecker had formulated the problem: "The whole numbers has made the Lord, everything else is the work of man." Science will, however, after their claim, not rely on the wisdom of God, which is accessed by faith. Science wants to know everything yourself.
Unlike Kronecker (who is himself an early precursor of the so-called "constructivism" in mathematics, as he then was implemented by Paul Lorenzen) were tried, as a result of the formalistic way. This means that in the context of formal systems, based solely on the formal logic should prove possible for the truth originally generated by unsubstantiated claims, the axioms. Thus, it was hoped, could be the question: "what are the natural numbers?" get around, which would result in this formal, purely logical system then. For the other sciences are called such efforts "scientific theory".

This could reach that you are not in a social context, a dialogue on "empirical" truth must be some evidence. It could be on the dialogue, ie not on the production of the dialogical symmetry and drive like the individualist discourse of power of social transitivity. (See blog "Words provide music "). If the proof of the truth of an assertion also individualistic, just by Lonely logical thinking within his own head, then you may face with full permission by the so individualistic developed possession of the truth 'rational' obligations .. others say this is a basic idea of the so-called "methodological individualism" That play these theoretical efforts, specializing in the field of mathematics, does not matter - if it succeeds in theories justified only formally, it is possible also in other areas of methodologically sound knowledge.

But the efforts of several Decades have been in vain.
Almost every new attempt to solve this problem, experienced, barely invented, his ruin.

The English philosopher, logician and mathematician Bertrand Russell destroyed with the "Russell's antinomy" the inventor of modern logic, Gottlob Frege, the Good Hope, it is the foundation of mathematics from the formal logic by a 'naive' set theory succeeded.

Russell presented the paradox that is from the village barber who shaves all who do not shave themselves. Problem: the needs of the barber shave himself not fit in this rule - ie, the village barber who shaves?.

Russell himself would solve the problem by - in order to remain in his image - hired an additional barber who shaves those in other villages that do not shave themselves, then shave all but those who do not shave themselves ... . So he designed a "type theory", a hierarchical gradation of such rules. In level 1, you talk about the origins of art, in stage 2 you talk about the stage 1 and their contents, but not on the stage 2 itself, in stage 3 tells us about the items that are level 2 and level 1 but not on the level 3 itself, etc. .. (You can see the structure of argument in social transitivity: the elite make the rules plebs, but not to themselves, see blog "Words with Music) The theories be nested as Matrjoschkas.

It remained unclear whether the extensive amount of teaching from the Russell's "Principia Mathematica" self-contained, is consistent. The question of consistency and completeness is the lifeblood of any formal logical theory. If these two conditions are not met, you could 'prove' the theory of everything Any - and prove who else can not prove anything, "quodlibet ex falsum. For what you put into it in the formal theory are so completely arbitrary, unproven axioms. So, after the detection of internal consistency and the completeness of a formal theory can be used to produce this true statements.

The mathematician David Hilbert had announced its comprehensive "Hilbert program" with which he was honored to provide the necessary evidence for Russell's "Principia Mathematica" with a meta-mathematics - but hardly the ink had dried, to be published student Kurt Gödel's "incompleteness theorem".

Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem This states that a formal axiomatic theory NEVER can with their own arguments with their own language means also prove that she herself is both fully consistent - that the two necessary conditions are met, a formal theory to theory making. One can either prove the completeness or the consistency - but not both.
It is about the question of the generality of statements. A statement is universally valid if and only if it is formally provable - that is the starting position. Generality is stated: Truth. But it is about such statements, which are first asserted arbitrarily, and then only under a system of formal conclusions as consistent with all other statements that can produce this system to be proven. The consistency of a statement with the other statements is evidence of the truth (with respect to this system), this implies the universal validity of a statement. From an incomplete system, however, all possible statements are derived again without opposition - there is then worthless because arbitrary.

So one needs, besides the proof of consistency, even the proof of the completeness of this system, you will receive the claim to universal validity of the derived statement maintained. Both evidence must be inerhalb the system, not from without, not from a different system. Because this would even be considered until, by another, and so on and so on, ad infinitum. Matryoshka system.

Godel's incompleteness theorem has one, still not fully recognized explosive power for all "axiomatic" sciences. "Axiomatic" are all theories that start with any of these "definitions", and then to derive further conclusions. Let's go to the university library through the ranks of various Browse Departments and in the textbooks, then we observe: it is made virtually everywhere, especially in the social sciences..

is this is neglected, that Godel's incompleteness theorem final and definitely destroyed all hope of ever confined to a formalist methodology of unjustified initial assertions (axioms) truths, or even empirically confirmable truths, statements about the world as they generate outside can. The "Erlanger school" has only just for a few sciences offered a solution (logic, mathematics, physics, chemistry). Unfortunately, this is

consequence of the incompleteness not in science theory and methodology incorporated - and this is the task of a truly free science from metaphysics. Instead, it mystifies you: about the world as an "Eternal Golden Braid" (see Douglas R. Hofstadter: Gödel, Escher, Bach)) Such self-referential loops are aesthetically beautiful - "we Fahrner Fahrner. fahrn on the highway, then we turn on the radio, from the speaker it sounds: we Fahrner, fahrn fahrn on the highway "but hardly suitable for an argumentative reason.

This hard blow Godel against the "logical positivism" was the starting point, from which designed Popper his Falsifikationstheorie . His idea: If you have to say can not prove the truth of an assertion, then one may, out of sheer plausibility, resourcefulness and life experience, what you will, to the falsity of this assertion.

Earlier, Popper argued in a famous controversy with the philosopher and logician Rudolf Carnap. Carnap had to present Gödel's incompleteness theorem by also shipwrecked with his attempt, the (formal) logical structure of the world. " Incidentally, Wittgenstein on Godel's sentence affected his philosophy changed and complete - nothing but only a few years and thought thoroughly.

Carnap tried it now again with "physicalism". The basic idea is that physicalism by log records as closely as possible to take an observation of the real, physical things (who, when, how long has etc. "out there" was closely monitored). For these - in order provability and accountability well documented - Individual observations should be formed by "induction" general statements and general concepts, so to speak, the raw material of Sciences. This one takes a series of individual statements: This swan here is white, and that there is white swan, and the swan over there is white, AND ... AND ... It combines many individual statements with AND - and generalized. How many individual statements? Well, perhaps until as when asleep counting sheep. From the AND-connection of many individual statements then create the logical quantifier "ALL". Is it just because you "ALL" introduces the sentence, speaking of a general universal statement? (This occurred Popper, when he logged the data on the individuals in the "log records" and then emphasized "basic principles" language.)

fact is this induction, generalization, only at a finite, countable number of individuals, such as: "applies to all swans on our village pond:
'this swan' ε white"

The quantifier ALL can be replaced by a concrete number, eg "seven". Because the amount of animals we are talking about, is countable, we can always go back to the situation in which we eigeführt the predictor "Swan", taught or learned. "At that time I told you, this is a swan, therefore, look closely, it is true , which is a swan!"

We are looking for but after the way a general term for a potentially infinite set of individuals to establish, for an "unlimited communication community". We also want tomorrow, tomorrow, or on vacation in a distant country can, while watching a large water bird tell our child: "Look, this is a swan." And this claim should be able to claim to be true .

It is therefore an opportunity to make true statements - as in everyday life, so in science.

As long as the Godel's incompleteness theorem is not the necessary consequence will be considered if Thus the axiomatic-formalist methodology of science will be kept (as in economics), then you have to do without the generally scientifically substantiated claim to truth. this happening for example in systems theory and 'radical constructivism' - instead of "truth" one prefers to speak of feasibility, "viability". . The truth is the invention of a liar "for example, H. von Foerster titled his book for social theory, this means that the Widerspruchssfreiheit sufficient for the feasibility, if one is assertive and on the" completeness ", ie to take into account interests of ALL can give members of a social system. So the question of truth is stripped back to the question whether a self-appointed elite can impose their particular interests against the rest of society.

it any wonder when the economic policy in accordance with the political feasibility and feasibility of the power to the wealthy districts determined?

public in thinking and reasoning also means thinking and reasoning to the public.
science is not without ethics, which is already implemented in the concepts of science, a methodologically immanent ethics of science Generalization of the self.