home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!news
- From: turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin)
- Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
- Subject: Re: Which theory before observation ?
- Date: 12 Jan 1993 13:08:07 -0600
- Organization: CS Dept, University of Texas at Austin
- Lines: 54
- Message-ID: <ll65onINNpu1@tokio.cs.utexas.edu>
- References: <C0p53E.Iyp@unx.sas.com>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: tokio.cs.utexas.edu
- Summary: "Mass" seems to be holding its own.
-
- -*----
- In article <schiller.726827765@hpas5>, schiller@prl.philips.nl (schiller c) writes:
- >> 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.
- >>
- >> Btw, "mass of an object" means "difficulty to move it",
-
- In article <C0qw25.134@unx.sas.com> sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill) writes:
- > 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.
-
- This objection does not damage the terminology-as-shorthand
- thesis. Suppose that "mass" initially means any or all of these
- things. Gary Merrill can complain that this reflects a theory of
- identity, but Schiller can respond that it merely reflects a
- failure to disambiguate because observation has not required it.
- The term "mass" then runs the risk of being ambiguous, but so do
- most terms. At the point when it is needed (if ever), physicists
- can refine their terminology and speak of "stopping mass,"
- "starting mass," and "turning mass." (Physicists already
- distinguish inertial mass from gravitational mass, and Gary
- Merrill may rightly point out that this is because our theories
- embed the isotropy of the universe with respect to physical law
- at a more basic level than the equivalence of gravitational force
- and acceleration. This strikes me as a good example that *some*
- distinctions are theory laden.)
-
- It is undoubtedly the case that words that refer to observations
- are potentially ambiguous, even such simple terms as "cat" or
- "rug." (Thank you, Wittgenstein.) It strikes me as quite a leap
- from there to the notion that such terms are theory laden in any
- significant sense. When ambiguities arise, they are easily
- resolved by introducing new terms that express finer
- distinctions.
-
- > ... 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?
-
- Perhaps Schiller is waiting for someone who is "familiar with the
- vast literature" to give a good and interesting criticism before
- he delves into it. After all, a "vast literature" has little to
- recommend it if those who read it, study it, and recommend it are
- not made the wiser thereby. (Consider: are you led to reading
- Rand's essays from the babblings of Objectivists?)
-
- Russell
-