home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!pipex!demon!cix.compulink.co.uk!shaman
- Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
- From: shaman@cix.compulink.co.uk (Leo Smith)
- Subject: Re: MINDWALK - An exercise in Passionate Thought
- Reply-To: shaman@cix.compulink.co.uk
- Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 20:53:00 +0000
- Message-ID: <memo.836294@cix.compulink.co.uk>
- Sender: usenet@demon.co.uk
- Lines: 80
-
- In-Reply-To: <C054wx.KFJ@unixhub.SLAC.Stanford.EDU> sschaff@roc.SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Stephen F. Schaffner)
-
- >|> Randall, How can you assert that a model is reality?
- >|>
- >|> There are not elementary particles. There IS a model which accords
- >|> well with observation of some obscure and arcane aspects of atomic
- >|> physics that features concepts that are given the name 'elementary
- >|> particles'. But their existence is not of the same order as you or I
- >|> or the world we live in.
-
- [...]
-
- >It seems to me that you make one true and one false statement above. It
- >is of course true that models are not reality, being at best but
- >imperfect descriptions of what is (or may be) there. The falsehood
- >is that in talking about people, or "the world we live in" you're
- >not using models; "person" or "human being" is just as much a
- >construct as "elementary particle" or "electron".
-
- One: At last some intelligent comments.
-
- Two: I did not (carefully) say that persons are real and particles
- are not. I said that their existence was _not of the same order_. I
- agree that 'person' and 'human being' are constructs, but I disagree
- that the concepts are equally 'real'. More on that later...
-
- >There are differences between these concepts, to be sure. You can't see
- >individual electrons with your unaided senses, and they behave rather
- >differently than macroscopic objects, but so what? They're both
- >attempts to describe what really is, they both simplify that reality
- >so we can grasp it, and they are both subject to modification as we
- >learn more.
-
- Yes. Very well put.
-
- However.
-
- One: Is there any item in our worldview models that we can
- justifiably call more real than any other? I mean is 'love' as a
- concept describing reality equally as real as 'Thatcherism' and
- 'Quark'. You see where I am heading?
-
- Two: I disagree on principle with the statement that 'They're both
- attempts to describe what really is' . I think that you will find if
- you examine the matter that concepts in general survive and become
- accepted as 'fact' on utilitarian, not idealistic grounds. That is
- 'the earth goes round the sun' is regarded as a fact because it leads
- to simpler math, not because it is necessary a realistic description.
- I think that I read a good line on that recently - can't remember
- where - that evolution favors succesful models, not 'true' ones.
-
- For a first class treatment of that theme try 'Understanding the
- present' by Bryan Appleyard - which makes the point that science is
- actually what WORKS, not what is 'real' or 'true' - and indeed, there
- are alternative possibilities.
-
- Three: I really like 'they both simplify that reality so we can grasp
- it, and they are both subject to modification as we learn more'. That
- is exactly the point of a good conceptual model - the reduction of
- experience to a simple structure that gives good utilitarian
- predictability. That is why chaos theory is so amusing: It is a model
- that describes, but cannot predict with any degree of accuracy!
-
- > Anyway, it's time to see how my program (whose purpose,
- > incidentally, is reconstructing tracks of particles, some elementary
- > and some not so elementary) is coming along.
-
- Sounds like fun.
-
- PS Tom Price: you wanted to get recommendations on a book that would
- maybe live up to its promise. Try that Appleyard book. It is _very_
- interesting to consider that what we call 'real' is a system of
- thought that has evolved out of all sorts of conceptual models,
- BECAUSE IT WAS USEFUL, not because it was the only explanation, or in
- any way discernable as 'real.
-
- Leo
-
-
-
-