Theory Choice

Resha - loved it - but we only have enough sense to be what we are because any more would probably terrify us - much like any other animal.
There are examples of bogus scientific concepts being sustained as comforting favourites until some hierarchy snuffed it. There is a good argument that we are lead by the slowest because any faster would terrify us. However, mentioning 'quantum mechanics' is a biggy but I wholeheartedly support your right to raise it because it does not provide a complete answer.

I finished up some reading on reduction. I have always thought of it in the terms you used, Aedes, but apparently philosophers use the term "reduction" in a way exactly opposite to that used in math & science. There is an ironic humor in that.

The piece I enjoyed the most was by Feyerabend, but he probably goes a bit too far - much like Kuhn's claims of incommensurability. I wonder if people have to take such an extreme position to make their point.

In the end, though, Nickles probably has the best position by saying that no universal rule of reduction can be formulated. Every case is different, and they all reduce theories in different ways.

Resha- What doea NOMA stand for?

Here is the wiki entry on it: Stephen Jay Gould - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is a term coined by the biologist Stephen Jay Gould as an attempt to resolve conflicts between science and religion. It stands for "Non-overlapping Magesteria". It basically means science and religion operate in two different realms that share no common ground.

I don't like it for several reasons. One is the implication that there are two separate "truths". Second is the idea that only science has "fact" while religion is completely subjective.

Thanks. I agree. A daft idea.