On Thursday, November 14, 2019 at 5:56:33 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Thursday, November 14, 2019 at 4:49:36 PM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thursday, November 14, 2019 at 4:25:16 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: >>> >>> The problem with physics is physicists ! Yeah, that's my conclusion >>> after many years of studying, arguing and reading. Many, perhaps most, >>> attribute ontological character to what is epistemological; namely the wf. >>> This leads to all kinds of conceptual errors, and ridiculous models and >>> conjectures -- such as MW, particles being in two positions at the same >>> time, radiioactive sources that are simultanously decayed and undecayed, >>> and so forth. The wf gives us information about the state of a system and >>> nothing more. Sorry to disappoint. AG >>> >> >> >> >> >> Physics is only models that come and go. One model (an expression in a >> language) can be replaced by another if it's useful. Physicists who jump >> from a model to an absolute statement about reality are out over their skis. >> >> *How Models Are Used to Represent Reality* >> Ronald N. Giere >> >> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/216300663_How_Models_Are_Used_to_Represent_Reality >> >> Most recent philosophical thought about the scientific representation of >> the world has focused on dyadic relationships between language-like >> entities and the world, particularly the semantic relationships of >> reference and truth. Drawing inspiration from diverse sources, I argue that >> we should focus on the pragmatic activity of representing, so that the >> basic representational relationship has the form: Scientists use models to >> represent aspects of the world for specific purposes. Leaving aside the >> terms "law" and "theory," I distinguish principles, specific conditions, >> models, hypotheses, and generalizations. I argue that scientists use >> designated similarities between models and aspects of the world to form >> both hypotheses and generalizations. >> >> @philipthrift. >> > > I fundamentally disagree. The premise underlying models is that they > progressively approach a "true" discription of the external world. Do you > really think the Earth-centered model of the solar system is equally true > as our present understanding? AG >
One is much better than another* truthiness*-wise. But good luck in life finding the absolute truth! Let us know when you find it. @philipthrift -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/3a77da2d-2294-457e-87b1-65019edb4080%40googlegroups.com.
