The reference to Matrix is especially interesting when placed right in a middle of scientific debate. Usually such references are made by the other side. Which leads me to observation that scientific method you defended so well can be augmented by main stream culture, rather than being opposed by it.

This observation may uncover a subtle nature of differences between empiricism (or positivism) and analytical approach that you advocate when you speak about realism of theory. The debate you engage, it seems to me, is very old. It goes back to Plato and Aristotle. More recently it inflamed the minds of scientist over apparent absurdity of Quantum Theory. So far empiricism seems to be wining.

After all, the relationship of Science and Culture is not only political, but also natural. It is made by dialectically opposing forces that drive evolution from survival to progress – one is not possible without another. It follows that carefully embracing each other – is the only right answer.

And let me make another reference to movie, from which you may learn something. In “The last Samurai” Tom Cruise answers to question – is Honor still relevant in a modern world. He answers “ … what can be more relevant”. And the rest is history.

The reference to Matrix is especially interesting when placed right in a middle of scientific debate. Usually such references are made by the other side. Which leads me to observation that scientific method you defended so well can be augmented by main stream culture, rather than being opposed by it.

This observation may uncover a subtle nature of differences between empiricism (or positivism) and analytical approach that you advocate when you speak about realism of theory. The debate you engage, it seems to me, is very old. It goes back to Plato and Aristotle. More recently it inflamed the minds of scientist over apparent absurdity of Quantum Theory. So far empiricism seems to be wining.

After all, the relationship of Science and Culture is not only political, but also natural. It is made by dialectically opposing forces that drive evolution from survival to progress – one is not possible without another. It follows that carefully embracing each other – is the only right answer.

And let me make another reference to movie, from which you may learn something. In “The last Samurai” Tom Cruise answers to question – is Honor still relevant in a modern world. He answers “ … what can be more relevant”. And the rest is history.

While I clearly agree that Anderson has missed the mark in his assessment of science and the formation of knowledge, I would not go so far as to say he believes in a Utopian state of technology. In fact, I think that may be giving him too much credit, whereas I believe his position is predicated more on a position of intellectual laziness.

As to your position on 'singularity', I must admit I am a skeptic; though, I think research into grid computing, neural networks, and the like might interest you and likely endeavor you to write more on the topic.

Good read, thank you!

While I clearly agree that Anderson has missed the mark in his assessment of science and the formation of knowledge, I would not go so far as to say he believes in a Utopian state of technology. In fact, I think that may be giving him too much credit, whereas I believe his position is predicated more on a position of intellectual laziness.

As to your position on ‘singularity’, I must admit I am a skeptic; though, I think research into grid computing, neural networks, and the like might interest you and likely endeavor you to write more on the topic.

Good read, thank you!

Charles Knight, editor
Charles@ReadWriteWeb.com

Charles Knight, editor
Charles@ReadWriteWeb.com