Re: The Point

reany_at_asu.edu
Date: 03/09/05 

Date: 9 Mar 2005 05:00:57 -0800

Bill Hobba wrote:
> <reany@asu.edu> wrote in message
> news:1110345174.384858.159700@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Bill Hobba wrote:
> > > "AllYou!" <idaman@conversent.net> wrote in message
> > > news:gfmdnafcXck6BbDfRVn-vA@conversent.net...
> > > > "Cranks are usually big on using adjectives like 'real' as if
it
> > had some
> > > actual
> > > > meaning."---Hobba
> > >
> > > They sure are - meaning the way they use it has ill defined
context
> > and
> > > interpetation..
> > >
> > > >
> > > > "SR has nothing to do with 'perception', is has to do with time
and
> > > distances as indicated
> > > > by real apparatus eg rulers and clocks." ---- Hobba
> > >
> > > Real put in front of apparatus has an obvious meaning and context
-
> > namely
> > > apparatus from experiments that can actually be performed rather
than
> > the
> > > irrelevant semantically motivated gibberish you write. You are
the
> > poster
> > > child for Wiggensatins closing comment of his famous tractatus -
> > > http://www.kfs.org/~jonathan/witt/ten.html - Whereof one cannot
> > speak,
> > > thereof one must be silent.
> > >
> > > Bill
> >
> > The man who lectures on too much philosophy around here doth quote
from
> > Wittgenstein?
>
> Point taken Patrick - athough Wittgenstein was himself a competent
> aeronautical scientist. It was Russell who turned him from his PhD
in
> applied math to issues at the foundations of mathematics then
philosophy. I
> only quote him to those whose need to be reminded - 'Whereof one
cannot
> speak, thereof one must be silent.'
>
> Thanks
> Bill

Bill, I'm not really complaining. It's just that there is no clean way
to separate philosophy from modern physics. When the NG was first
started 11 years ago, I harped against the ether people bringing up
ether at all. I thought that allowing it here only allowed in a great
deal of philosophical debate that was off the subject. That was my view
at the time.

Now, I strongly maintain that if ether is to be discussed/debated here
then the philosophical/psychological underpinnings and ramifications of
that debate are to be allowed in as well. It's not only fair, I think
it's necessary.

Relativity has always seemed to the disbelievers as the replacement of
"reality" by mere perceptions, and to some, even less than that. Or the
replacement of visualizable models by mathemagic, leading to the absurd
claim on the anti-relativists' part that relativity isn't even good
science. So there we have it: philosophy and psychology made political
as well. In particular, we need to be allowed to discuss what is the
true scientific nature of models and theories, etc. Thus, all the
fundamental questions about the nature of science are also very
relevant. I know that it covers a lot of territory but it can't be
helped.

The only way to "streamline" this NG is to do what I said we should do
long ago: make his NG for pro-relativists only. But that ain't gonna
happen, and maybe that's for the best.

This NG has revealed a shocking truth: Western science education is
lousy.

Patrick

Relevant Pages