NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #1/NN_1993_1.iso/spool/sci/philosop/tech/4752

Text File | 1993-01-12 | 3.5 KB | 74 lines

Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
Path: sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!darwin.sura.net!paladin.american.edu!gatech!concert!sas!mozart.unx.sas.com!sasghm
From: [e-mail] (Gary Merrill)
Subject: Re: Which theory before observation ?
Originator: [e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail] (Noter of Newsworthy Events)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 14:25:17 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <schiller.726394556@hpas5> <[e-mail]> <schiller.726487694@hpas5> <[e-mail]> <schiller.726741786@hpas5> <[e-mail]> <schiller.726827765@hpas5>
Nntp-Posting-Host: theseus.unx.sas.com
Organization: SAS Institute Inc.
Lines: 60


In article <schiller.726827765@hpas5>, [e-mail] (schiller c) writes:

|> Obviously I embrace the idea that no theory is necessary. (This is to
|> make you angry a little more ... :-) The historical account even prooves

Not at *all* angry, my dear sir.  Just more and more amused.  And *greatly*
puzzled that someone who calls himself a "scientist" can so uncritically
embrace such an inadequate view.

|> this to be so.
|> Alpha particles have been discovered, not invented. The term "discovery"
|> expresses the fact that the observation was *unexpected*, in other words,
|> that there was *no* theory beforehand. They were found by serendipity.
|>
|> Your position amounts to the denial that discoveries are possible. As a
|> scientist, I disagree completely. The question if such a thing as a "discovery"
|> is possible or not is a deep one, but science takes the clear stand that it is.
|> I am always interested to hear from people who deny the existence of the
|> possibility of discoveries.  But in my experience, and in that of the people I
|> see, "discovery" has a real meaning, independent of theory.

The points at dispute are *quite* independent of the issues involved in
the debate over a realist or anti-realist interpretation of scientific
theories.  Again, you have mised the point and attributed to me a position
I do not hold.

|> I also subscribe to the idea that every theoretical term (such as
|> 'alpha particle', 'mass', 'charge', etc.) is simply *shorthand* for
|> observations. This is the way physics and the other sciences have grown
|> and have been developed.

Oh dear.  This will not do.  It will not do at all.  It has not done for
about 50 years now.

|> Btw, "mass of an object"  means "difficulty to move it",

Or perhaps it means "difficulty to stop it from moving".  Or perhaps it
means "difficulty in changing its direction".  What it *means* is a feature
of the *laws* in which 'mass' appears -- laws in which 'force', 'energy',
'charge', etc. also appear.

|> "charge of an object" means "strength with which it moves when approached
|> by a stick which was previously stroken by a cat fur".
|> These *are* shorthand for observations.
|>
|> So let me sum with a challenge : can you give a concept in physics which
|> is NOT a shorthand for observations ?

Sure.  Pick any one.  That's the example.  I wonder this:  Are you in fact
familiar with the vast literature in this area while you choose to reject
the well known criticisms and counterexamples to your views for some
rational reason?  Or are you ignorant of this literature and simply clinging
to your own view based on your "intuition" of how things are?


--
Gary H. Merrill  [Principal Systems Developer, C Compiler Development]
SAS Institute Inc. / SAS Campus Dr. / Cary, NC  27513 / [phone]
[e-mail] ... !mcnc!sas!sasghm