(Untitled)

[dangerzooey]

A Robust Theory of Epistemological Relativism and How It Does Not Imply One Can't Be WrongThere are some basic normative prerequisites to scientific method which all of its followers accept. Among these are Hume's Uniformity Principle (that the future will be and that the present is like the past), Occam's Razor/Parsimony (that the simplest

Comments

[demoivre]

So are arbitrary distinctions bad? Physics is indeed built upon arbitrary distictions--I often wonder what physical "laws" and constants we would have arrived at if, for example, we had arbitrarily decided to use a base-twelve number system--but I guess the real question for me is: does it matter? Personally, I have been puzzling over the issue of how science--and other things--are taught, ie presented in a "dumbed-down" fashion and then, slowly "de-dumbed-down" as each student progresses in his or her education. I acknowledge that, for example, presenting junior high school students with Newton's Three Laws in vector or even differential form is pointless, but I think that students should be informed that they are being taught the "watered down" version.* Now, I'm not attacking your essay--on the contrary, I loved it and have been sitting back thinking about its implications off and on while typing this--but I'm uncertain as to...well, to be honest, I'm not certain of what I'm uncertain. I have been wrestling with something like this issue for some time, so I guess reading your essay has put me right back into that state of "Hmmmmmm...." Uh...carry on, then. ;)

*Other examples include the Second Law of Thermodynamics and E=mc^2...both of which are taught to younger students as if the concepts were being presented in their entirety when, it turns out, they are not--leaving students with a false impression of things like Entropy and Relativity. I don't have a problem with this as long as the students are informed that what they are being taught is imcomplete due to either experience or mathematical ability.

[dangerzooey]

Arbitrary notions aren't bad, they just don't seem conducive to our notion that for any proposition about the world, it is true or it is false (and not both) and there is no proposition that isn't either true or false. All the more reason to reject these notions from science altogether, I say (and maybe the term "truth" along with it).

(I'm fairly sure that the bias to think of truth in this way is a condition that is rarely made outside philosophy and mathematics, but is fairly firmly entrenched in there.)

[demoivre]

Ah...I agree with this. Truth/falsity does seem to have its place in both math and formal logic. In fact, I would say that the ONLY place truth/falsity should be found is in pure math and logic--in the sense that both pure math and formal logic can be abstracted from the "real" world.

[dangerzooey]

What about impure math?

[demoivre]

It should be purged of its impurities! *cackles maniacaly*

Seriously, though, if you mean applied math, the problem is that you lose the abstraction of pure math and have to delve into the world of approximations--ie, physics.

[dangerzooey]

I hope the physicists remember that and don't try to import any certainties into their explanations.

[demoivre]

Sadly, I think that when physicists--or anyone, really--atempts to "dumb-down" the subject, they default to leaving the impression of certainty--despite Heisenberg, he, he. If I have learned anything as a physics major, it's that physicists know far less than the general Hawking/Greene-reading public thinks they do. The truth is, though, that the macro world seems to run just fine on approximations--hence why mechnical engineers are not currently required to study quantum mechanics and Relativity--and so most physicists, specifically when dealing with the general public, forget that what they do is approximate.

This is a collection of articles by Richard Feynman including "Cargo Cult Science" in which he takes on what he calls psuedo-science and the lies physicists tell the public. The other articles are really good, too.

http://www.amasci.com/feynman.html

[dangerzooey]

Thanks. I actually just got his The Character of Physical Law in the mail yesterday. :)