From: Tim Maroney (tim@maroney.org)
Date: Tue Aug 28 2001 - 18:11:42 MDT
>> How can an incorrect theoretical
>> construct be an inherent part
>> of reality?
> You are getting hung up on words and concepts.. and
> ignoring the underlying reality those words represent.
"Gravity" is a word describing a theoretical construct. Other than that,
gravity is not at all observable. You seem to be casually postulating the
existence of a platonic ideal.
> You are confusing the map and the territory.
I think that applies more to your approach. The map is the word "gravity";
the territory is a set of shared observations.
> "Gravity" may be a theoretical concept... but you
> still wouldn't jump off of a 200 foot cliff, would
> you? Why not? In that situation... suddenly it's not
> quite so theoretical, is it?
Falling under certain circumstances is observable, and reports from several
observers will confirm the observation. Then again, so is not falling under
certain circumstances. I was just in a huge metal thing up in the air that
somehow managed not to fall for hours a few days ago.
>> Again, they're all provisional theoretical
>> constructs.
> Constructs that describe reality to a greater or
> lesser degree.
The nature of that similarity relationship continues to evade philosophy.
There's no excuse for blurring the distinction between theory and
observation at the current state of understanding.
> The fact that we don't really
> understand what exactly gravity is in no way means
> that it doesn't exist.
So you're asking me to believe in something that you can't describe or
explain, of which all known models are known to be false, based purely on
your say-so? Sounds a lot like religious faith to me.
>> Flashback to 1900:
>> "The ether simply IS -- it exists irrespective of
>> your desires." That's how
>> your statement will look in 2100.
> I doubt it seriously. There are no real world
> consequences to believing or disbelieving in "the
> ether". It made a handy explanation at a time when
> such things couldn't be measured at all.
>
> We CAN, however, measure the effects of gravity.
They could measure the effects of the ether, too. The effects were called
"light." Only thing is, the ether turned out not to be such a good
explanation, just as we know current ideas of gravity are not very good
explanations.
> Whatever "gravity" is, it is real... and it affects
> everyone and everything in very predictable, easily
> measured ways.
Like God, you mean? You can't see it, can't explain it, but it pervades and
influences everything?
> It doesn't matter what you believe...
> step off that two hundred foot cliff without a
> parachute and you die, "irrespective of your desires."
Not a true statement at all. There's a wide variety of ways you could not
die under the circumstances you describe.
Obsolescence and partiality of theoretical constructs are among the biggest
problems for the philosophy formerly known as materialism, and now known as
scientific realism. A bigger problem is that no one has the faintest idea
any more of what a "natural law" is supposed to be in itself.
-- Tim Maroney tim@maroney.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:10:12 MST