The title is Nancy Cartwright’s, from her book of the same name, and from an article which forms Chapter 3, “Do the Laws of Physics State the Facts?” No, she says, and we agree. I thought it well to summarize this chapter before we review work by David Deustch.
If only our august “climate change” scientists (and Al Gore, et Al.) realized the truth of this and appreciated how small their understanding is in the face of the Earth’s climate complexity.
May 2, 2023·edited May 2, 2023Liked by William M Briggs
Ain’t the terms we converge on—as well as language more broadly—itself the model reified? 2nd-order as it were 😉 There’s no escape from deadly embrace of this deadly sin; doomed are we to eternal wandering, blindly tripping over / bouncing from reality constraints 🤦
--
PS For 'tis no good to leave the mind in dire mood ↓↓ 😊
🗨 I am sure that Adam ate the apple just to stop Eve from making a scene in front of all of Paradise. ~~Itxu Díaz
"All things being equal" versus "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts" captures well the moral calculus underlying the relentless, tragic battle between hubris and wisdom.
Some more confusion with what words mean in their different dispensations, this time description vs explanation 🙂
🗨 Newtonian physics did not truly explain the phenomena with which it dealt, but carried the day because it described them so well. We have a highly abstract mathematical description of nature that tells us very little about its intrinsic nature.
Well, one can’t be an “expert” if a layman can understand the complexity. Arcane language is the currency of “experts” in all fields. Just try reading a state statute or even a local ordinance, they may as well be written in Attic Greek.
A good example, I think. Our problems often arise when we assume too much. Simple established formulas, like the referenced gravitational effect, can yield a good deal of useful information. They only become dangerous when we assume predictive value that doesn’t exist.
Sometimes I have trouble believing that there can be things as complex as a Boeing 777 and no one really knows why it just moves up there in the sky, and it takes off and it lands and all the works; and yet they know that, since it is real, it follows that laws of nature they don't understand must be true, and you can never be completely sure of anything, and you definitely need more quacksines or else people will think poorly of you.
This article should be printed and massively distributed, and should even be made to be read by force (I'm thinking of something along the lines of that scene of the TV's in A Clockwork Orange) to all scientists, and especially to all science teachers.
The confusion of fundamental notions such as reality vs. mental vapors is a tragedy of cataclysmic proportions.
“I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i.e., continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics.” — Albert Einstein in a letter to his friend Besso, from Subtle is the Lord by Abraham Pais.
Newton's Universal Theory of Gravity has lots of holes in it.
I am amazed that you think anyone would want to read that (the linked book by Nancy Cartwright. Dude. People do NOT read stuff like that. However, since I just did for three minutes, I can tell you she does not seem like a big deal to me. Very Um..... "specialist" stuff. You are writing for some particular audience? Because we do not like to read that stuff. I see her as a troublemaker, trying to drum something up. If the theories are good, they are good. Leave others the fu*k alone.
Possibly it is a good book. I don't know, I just felt kind of insulted that "Mr. Science is Not the Answer" expected me to read it. It is an extremely specialized sort of book, isn't it? What is that the academic world? But as for what you are quoting there that does sound like something worthwhile --- like she has captured an insight. Like saying: "society will respond to events, whether thinking it through or not doing so" Whether we do the math or not, it comes out the same way
If only our august “climate change” scientists (and Al Gore, et Al.) realized the truth of this and appreciated how small their understanding is in the face of the Earth’s climate complexity.
Ain’t the terms we converge on—as well as language more broadly—itself the model reified? 2nd-order as it were 😉 There’s no escape from deadly embrace of this deadly sin; doomed are we to eternal wandering, blindly tripping over / bouncing from reality constraints 🤦
--
PS For 'tis no good to leave the mind in dire mood ↓↓ 😊
🗨 I am sure that Adam ate the apple just to stop Eve from making a scene in front of all of Paradise. ~~Itxu Díaz
Reminds me of my Freshman Physics class — to calculate the motion of an object, first assume no friction which we all dutifully did!!
"All things being equal" versus "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts" captures well the moral calculus underlying the relentless, tragic battle between hubris and wisdom.
Some more confusion with what words mean in their different dispensations, this time description vs explanation 🙂
🗨 Newtonian physics did not truly explain the phenomena with which it dealt, but carried the day because it described them so well. We have a highly abstract mathematical description of nature that tells us very little about its intrinsic nature.
Well, one can’t be an “expert” if a layman can understand the complexity. Arcane language is the currency of “experts” in all fields. Just try reading a state statute or even a local ordinance, they may as well be written in Attic Greek.
Oh, one sure *has* to differentiate from 'ems unenlightened despicable deplorables! 🤸
A good example, I think. Our problems often arise when we assume too much. Simple established formulas, like the referenced gravitational effect, can yield a good deal of useful information. They only become dangerous when we assume predictive value that doesn’t exist.
Sometimes I have trouble believing that there can be things as complex as a Boeing 777 and no one really knows why it just moves up there in the sky, and it takes off and it lands and all the works; and yet they know that, since it is real, it follows that laws of nature they don't understand must be true, and you can never be completely sure of anything, and you definitely need more quacksines or else people will think poorly of you.
This article should be printed and massively distributed, and should even be made to be read by force (I'm thinking of something along the lines of that scene of the TV's in A Clockwork Orange) to all scientists, and especially to all science teachers.
The confusion of fundamental notions such as reality vs. mental vapors is a tragedy of cataclysmic proportions.
Thank you
'By force' is never the answer 😏
Thanks, Carlitos.
“I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i.e., continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics.” — Albert Einstein in a letter to his friend Besso, from Subtle is the Lord by Abraham Pais.
Newton's Universal Theory of Gravity has lots of holes in it.
https://ifers.forumotion.com/t353-mathematically-debunking-gravity-a-critique-of-newtons-laws
I am amazed that you think anyone would want to read that (the linked book by Nancy Cartwright. Dude. People do NOT read stuff like that. However, since I just did for three minutes, I can tell you she does not seem like a big deal to me. Very Um..... "specialist" stuff. You are writing for some particular audience? Because we do not like to read that stuff. I see her as a troublemaker, trying to drum something up. If the theories are good, they are good. Leave others the fu*k alone.
Possibly it is a good book. I don't know, I just felt kind of insulted that "Mr. Science is Not the Answer" expected me to read it. It is an extremely specialized sort of book, isn't it? What is that the academic world? But as for what you are quoting there that does sound like something worthwhile --- like she has captured an insight. Like saying: "society will respond to events, whether thinking it through or not doing so" Whether we do the math or not, it comes out the same way
Yes. Don't read it. It would do you no good.