Tullio Regge, one of the most important Italian physicist, in his last publication (2004) affirmed: "If science would reach the Absolute Truth, the same science would be complete and would have no more reason of existing". I want to change this and ask:" Why not? Why we shouldn't reach it?", it's a question, as the same Regge admits, of "personal methaphysics".In my opinion "Good reasons" for such a "promethean" research could be the same conception expressed also from Regge that nature is not always a benevolent Mother, or referring to Schopenauer, the illusion of an infinite variety which should characterize the human's experience; or referring to Indian philosophy, the question of the human suffering.Somebody could judge this analysis as a result of a simple misanthropy, cosmic pessimism. So I ask: is there another possibility? Have we to trust in a linear and infinite progress of knowledge, though these features of linearity and infiniteness were just contested by thinkers like Thomas Kuhn, Feyerabend, etc. Sure, it's always welcome a technological progress that improves our lives and avoid ppl's suffering, but at the end: "Who am I, Who are We and Why we are here?"Science should take definitely in a more visible way the place of the old religions in inquiring this, that's simply "The Question of all the Questions" and the main reason of all the human acting and thinking.So Go Science over the old religions and Go for the Absolute Truth.Okay, Waiting for your comments.Thank u. Bye Bye.Bachelor's in Sociology. Interested in Philosophy of science, Epistemology.http://groups.myspace.com/Brights
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 License .
