arnoud: a> On Sunday 14 September 2003 16:31, Cliff Stabbert wrote: a>c>a> I don't quite follow this train of thought. Physicalism to me is a>c>a> justified by the success of the natural sciences with their a>c>a> materialist ontology of atoms, electrons, molecules and so on. a>c> a>c> It is entirely possible to use the scientific method and its fruits a>c> without buying into physicalism as the be-all and end-all, materialism a>c> as the ultimate ontology, etc.
a> But look at its fruits, all well established theories have a materialistic a> ontology, with atoms, electrons, molecules, biological cels, quarks, a> photons.... Yeah, about those photons. Doesn't the strict materialist ontology break down in the face of the wave/particle "conflict"? Isn't a model in which both the particle model and the wave model are seen *as* models that work in different contexts, without necessarily representing any kind of "ultimate truth", more consistently useful? I was under the impression, perhaps mistakenly as I have no relevant training nor do I follow the latest developments, that such a "metamodel" was widely accepted as the scientific philosphic perspective on things these days, i.e., we cannot presume, just because we have some neat model that work *in all _currently_ known contexts* that it represents the Real Underlying Truth. The closer we seem to get to that latter, the more it seems to recede / turn weird, from what I can tell from this great distance. In fact, the whole "our models must represent some Underlying Ultiimate Truth, because they work" can be more clearly be shown as the nonsense it is (yep, I'm being pretty blunt again) by considering the history of those models, and the ever-changing ontology behind them: a) *obviously*, the sun is a disk that rises and falls. Because that's what happens every day! Q.E.D. b) I mean, whoops, *obviously* the sun rotates around the earth. Because that's what happens every day! Our model accurately predicts this, therefore that's the Real Truth! Q.E.D. c) OK, fine, so I screwed up again, I mean the earth rotates around the sun! Should be pretty obvious. Right? BTWHEV!QED. ...or a) Obviously Newton has figured out the ultimate nature of motion, acceleration, etc. His model predicts things correctly every time, therefore his model must be True! b) ...OK, sorry, Newton was sort of close but Einstein nailed it. Newton is good enough for government work as long as you don't go too fast, but isn't really The Hardcore Truth. That would be Einstein's model. Period. This time I'm sure of it! c) Etc. Or am I missing where you've moved beyond this argument somehow? -- Cliff ------- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
