#dumb8itch

Nor do I have any reason to think that physics ‘founds’ biology, still less that mathematics could do so. That biology, to say nothing of the ‘human sciences’, are still not sciences, does not result from the fact that they are not yet in a position to propose mathematical formalisms appropriate to experimentation. This formal deficiency is only a secondary symptom. The root of the problem is that their concepts are wholly insufficient, that they fail completely to present the phenomena concerned in the register of eternal truths. In the case of biology, the possible founding intuitions all go back to Darwin. Mendel’s experimental expertise opened another path, albeit one that is limited unless it is inscribed in the vast Darwinian innovation, which no-one to this day has succeeded in doing, unless it be in pre-conceptual approximations, purely rhetorical combinations of chance and necessity. The veritable conceptualization of all this is yet to come. Naturally, there exist within this domain countless instances of knowledge, which are translated into remarkable technical skills, particularly in the medical field. But there is no science. To turn this domain into a science, some unforeseeable events would be required, a second post-Darwinian foundation, whose shape we cannot anticipate. In the meantime, we can say that there exist two sciences which cannot be hierarchised: ontology, or pure mathematics, and physics, the science of those worlds accessible to our experience.

2. That doesn’t mean that you *wouldn’t* dress up, nor that you don’t have a desire to--it only means that you haven’t yet. This is still an open problem, folks. Is Rachel a secret furry? The world may never know.

Which is also fairly wild to me. So Rachel, I guess there are two in support of your case.