🚀 go-pugleaf

Hakki_Kocabas@kcbbs.gen.nz (Hakki Kocabas) writes:

>However My Son!  
>'fact' is not a fact unless it is prescribed by a theory...in other words  
>there are NO facts in science unless we prescribe one by a theory...and when  
>you withdraw the theory away, all the facts attached to it disappear into the 
>thin air....it is like this; if we didn't invent QM then we wouldn't have   
>electrons..but, of course, if electrons are _some_ facts for you :-> then  
>what would you do without QM, you would look like a fish out of pond :-)  
>  
>as you say, fortunately, the middle-ages are over with all their bogeys called
>- scientific-facts...:-)..now we can live happily here-after without clinging 
>to some theories as if they were revealed words of the God...and also  
>we don't confuse the revealed words of the God with scientific-facts....  
>:-)....happy ending....:-)  
>  

However my son ! Facts are never presecribed by theory, facts are the 
results of observation.

For example, electrons were there much before quantum mechanics
(at least 30 years before) when they were observed in Braun tubes
and similar devices. By the way, your TV and your terminal
(except if LCD) is a Braun tube, and a
ray of electrons produces the image. No quantum mechanics is
necessary to observe this fact ... :-)

Your (wrong) statement that "if we didn't invent QM then we wouldn't have   
electrons" is a nice example which shows the difference between a
fact (based on observation) and a speculation "prescribed" by 
what you (but not scientists) call a "theory", namely your 
conviction that theories precede facts ... :-)

I guess you many :-) signs mean to show that you have some theory
which comes before all your facts. Can you at least spell it out in more
detail, to enlighten us more ? :-) 


		Cheers

			Christoph Schiller

In article <102936.2005.14241@kcbbs.gen.nz>, Hakki_Kocabas@kcbbs.gen.nz (Hakki Kocabas) writes:
|>   
|> >  Science *is* the study of basic facts, ....  
|>    (science, basic-facts)  
|>   
|> >  ..time, space, matter, interactions, motion, change. All of these are   
|> >  basic facts.   
|>    (basic-facts)  
|>   
|> >  Science is to be judged by facts...  
|>    (science, facts)  
|>   
|> However My Son!  
|> 'fact' is not a fact unless it is prescribed by a theory...in other words  
|> there are NO facts in science unless we prescribe one by a theory...and when  
|> you withdraw the theory away, all the facts attached to it disappear into the 
|> thin air....it is like this; if we didn't invent QM then we wouldn't have   
|> electrons..but, of course, if electrons are _some_ facts for you :-> then  
|> what would you do without QM, you would look like a fish out of pond :-)  

While in general I agree with your response to the simplistic and
uncritical view expressed above, the view you express here is also
a bit simplistic.  For example, it appears to leave no room for the
existence of a phenomenon that is anomalous with respect to the
current theory, thus prohibiting theory change (also, apparently,
making it unnecessary!).
-- 
Gary H. Merrill  [Principal Systems Developer, C Compiler Development]
SAS Institute Inc. / SAS Campus Dr. / Cary, NC  27513 / (919) 677-8000
sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com ... !mcnc!sas!sasghm

In article <schiller.726316570@hpas5>, schiller@prl.philips.nl (schiller c) writes:

|> However my son ! Facts are never presecribed by theory, facts are the 
|> results of observation.

I don't have much of a clue what "prescribed" means here.  Perhaps
what is meant is that the range of "possible facts" or the range
of "descriptions of facts" is limited by theory.  That wouldn't be
*so* bad a claim.

|> For example, electrons were there much before quantum mechanics
|> (at least 30 years before) when they were observed in Braun tubes

Ummm.  Something was there.  But were they *electrons*?  Phlogiston
was there much before the phlogiston theory.  Then it seems to have
disappeared post Priestley and Lavoisier.  Of course oxygen was there
prior to the oxidation theory as well.  Hasn't disappeared yet.

|> and similar devices. By the way, your TV and your terminal
|> (except if LCD) is a Braun tube, and a
|> ray of electrons produces the image. No quantum mechanics is
|> necessary to observe this fact ... :-)

Which fact?  The images on the screen or the "fact" that it is
a ray of electrons that produces the image?  (Actually, I don't
like talking about observing facts.  Better to observe phenomena
and treat the descriptions of these phenomena as facts.)

|> Your (wrong) statement that "if we didn't invent QM then we wouldn't have   
|> electrons" is a nice example which shows the difference between a
|> fact (based on observation) and a speculation "prescribed" by 
|> what you (but not scientists) call a "theory", namely your 
|> conviction that theories precede facts ... :-)

Well, I'm not sure the claim was that theories *precede* facts
(certainly not in a temporal sense, perhaps not in a logical sense).
The more sophisticated form of this claim is that the relation of
fact to theory is a kind of mutually parasitic one.  Certainly,
for example, whatever *sense* the term "electron" now has, it has
in virtue of QM.  This doesn't mean that if we didn't have QM
we wouldn't have electrons, but it does mean something to the
effect that if we didn't have *some* theory in which "electron"
appears as a term, then it wouldn't make much sense to speak of
electrons.

However electrons are observed, this is not precisely in the same
manner as cows are observed (you don't need much of a "cow detecting
imaging aparatus" under normal circumstances).  A great deal of
*theory* needs to come into play in order to describe how an electron
is observed (if indeed we want to say that this is possible) or
what "observed" *means* when applied to electrons.
-- 
Gary H. Merrill  [Principal Systems Developer, C Compiler Development]
SAS Institute Inc. / SAS Campus Dr. / Cary, NC  27513 / (919) 677-8000
sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com ... !mcnc!sas!sasghm

In article <102936.2005.14241@kcbbs.gen.nz> Hakki_Kocabas@kcbbs.gen.nz (Hakki Kocabas) writes:
>  
>>  Science *is* the study of basic facts, ....  
>   (science, basic-facts)  
>  
>>  ..time, space, matter, interactions, motion, change. All of these are   
>>  basic facts.   
>   (basic-facts)  
>  
>>  Science is to be judged by facts...  
>   (science, facts)  
>  
>However My Son!  
>'fact' is not a fact unless it is prescribed by a theory...in other words  
>there are NO facts in science unless we prescribe one by a theory...and when  
>you withdraw the theory away, all the facts attached to it disappear into the 
>thin air....

This is pure, unadulterated nonsense.  Theories arise in reaction to
facts discovered beforehand (not by "induction", certainly, but there
are facts before the theory).  It's true that some facts framed in
terms of a theory depend heavily on the theory itself for their sense,
but not all of them.

it is like this; if we didn't invent QM then we wouldn't have   
>electrons..but, of course, if electrons are _some_ facts for you :-> then  
>what would you do without QM, you would look like a fish out of pond
:-)

The discovery of the electron predates formal QM :-) :-)

  
>  
>as you say, fortunately, the middle-ages are over with all their bogeys called
>- scientific-facts...:-)

There is a world, and some statements about it are true and known to
us.  The term "scientific facts" is unfortunate; "scientific" refers
to the way the facts were uncovered, not any feature of the facts
themselves.


..now we can live happily here-after without clinging 
>to some theories as if they were revealed words of the God...

Such clinging would not be proper scientific methodology.

and also  
>we don't confuse the revealed words of the God with
scientific-facts....

God reveals Its (real) Word only to those whose methodology is
properly scientific :-)

  
>:-)....happy ending....:-)  

If you say so.


>  
>> Christoph Schiller                         


-- 
The opinions expressed		|     --Sincerely,
above are not the "official"	|     M. Randall Holmes
opinions of any person		|     Math. Dept., Boise State Univ.
or institution.			|     holmes@opal.idbsu.edu

sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill) writes:

[ discussion deleted ]

>While in general I agree with your response to the simplistic and
>uncritical view expressed above, the view you express here is also
>a bit simplistic.  For example, 

[ ...]

>-- 
>Gary H. Merrill  [Principal Systems Developer, C Compiler Development]
>SAS Institute Inc. / SAS Campus Dr. / Cary, NC  27513 / (919) 677-8000
>sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com ... !mcnc!sas!sasghm


To dismiss an argument because it is "simplistic" is a 
typical example of, well, ... arrgogance ! 
A statement is either true or false, but "simplistic" is not
evidence for false. 

If in physics one had always dismissed "simplistic" arguments,
one would have got nowhere. On the contrary, the textbooks are 
full of "simplistic" solutions to difficult problems.
(Ether ? No ether !  Energy non-conservation ? No, a neutrino !
 Sky is dark at night ? Universe is finite ! etc.)

		Cheers

				Christoph Schiller

In article <schiller.726394556@hpas5>, schiller@prl.philips.nl (schiller c) writes:
|> sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill) writes:
|> 
|> [ discussion deleted ]
|> 
|> >While in general I agree with your response to the simplistic and
|> >uncritical view expressed above, the view you express here is also
|> >a bit simplistic.  For example, 
|> 
|> [ ...]
|> 
|> >-- 
|> >Gary H. Merrill  [Principal Systems Developer, C Compiler Development]
|> >SAS Institute Inc. / SAS Campus Dr. / Cary, NC  27513 / (919) 677-8000
|> >sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com ... !mcnc!sas!sasghm
|> 
|> 
|> To dismiss an argument because it is "simplistic" is a 
|> typical example of, well, ... arrgogance ! 
|> A statement is either true or false, but "simplistic" is not
|> evidence for false. 

Speaking of arrogance, perhaps a bit more study should be devoted
to the meanings of the terms here.  Do please try to distinguish
between "simple" and "simplistic".  While a case can be made that
dismissing a position (not an *argument* mind you) because it is
*simple* is a bad move, dismissing a position because it is
*simplistic* if perfectly all right.  Just get out your Webster's
and check the meanings.  You will discover that "false simplicity"
(and hence "false") is part of the *meaning* of this term.  Thus,
while "simplistic" is not *evidence* for falsity, "false" is a
part of its very meaning.

|> If in physics one had always dismissed "simplistic" arguments,
|> one would have got nowhere. On the contrary, the textbooks are 
|> full of "simplistic" solutions to difficult problems.

By *definition*, a *simplistic* solution is not a solution (think
along the lines of "false friend").

I did, by the way, not merely *label* the position as simplistic,
but went on at some length to indicate its flaws (which in any
event are well known).



-- 
Gary H. Merrill  [Principal Systems Developer, C Compiler Development]
SAS Institute Inc. / SAS Campus Dr. / Cary, NC  27513 / (919) 677-8000
sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com ... !mcnc!sas!sasghm

In article <schiller.726316570@hpas5> schiller@prl.philips.nl (schiller c) writes:
>
>However my son ! Facts are never presecribed by theory, facts are the 
>results of observation.
>
And, as Father Putnam and Grandfather Eddington before him pointed out, 
observations are informed by theories. Thus contrary to phenomenalist
twaddle, we've got a real chicken-egg problem here that will not be cleared 
away easily.



-- 
Christopher D. Green                christo@psych.toronto.edu
Psychology Department               cgreen@lake.scar.utoronto.ca
University of Toronto
Toronto, Ontario M5S 1A1

sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill) writes:


>|> If in physics one had always dismissed "simplistic" arguments,
>|> one would have got nowhere. On the contrary, the textbooks are 
>|> full of "simplistic" solutions to difficult problems.

>By *definition*, a *simplistic* solution is not a solution (think
>along the lines of "false friend").

>I did, by the way, not merely *label* the position as simplistic,
>but went on at some length to indicate its flaws (which in any
>event are well known).

My position as a scientist is that facts, i.e. the  results of observation,
are the basis of theories. There are no "well-known" flaws of this position. 

Some in the discussion quoted scientists (e.g. Eddington) saying that every 
observation needs a preceding theory. Well, some scientists are 
unsatisfied by the approach to the world that science pursues,
and Eddington surely felt this very deeply to be so. I can follow his 
unsatisfaction, but do not agree with it. He resolved it by 
saying that science is somehow wrong, and he concluded that 
this is due to the theoretical framework which supposedly, he says,
brings people to mix facts and personal prejudices, leading to 
his statement that theory preceds fact.

The discussion would become more interesting if somebody of the opposing camp
would  give a precise example of which "theory" is necessary to observe
something ! (Eddington surely was not able to do so ...)

		Christoph Schiller



		

In article <schiller.726487694@hpas5>, schiller@prl.philips.nl (schiller c) writes:

|> My position as a scientist is that facts, i.e. the  results of observation,
|> are the basis of theories. There are no "well-known" flaws of this position. 
...

|> The discussion would become more interesting if somebody of the opposing camp
|> would  give a precise example of which "theory" is necessary to observe
|> something ! (Eddington surely was not able to do so ...)

There really is abundant literature in this area stretching back
at least 50 years.  If the flaws in the positions are not known to
you, this is simply a comment on the breadth of your study of
methodological areas.  The positivists (many of whom were physicists
themselves, and with whom I share *great* sympathies) attempted to
base their epistemology on the fundamental concept of an "observation
statement" and the sharp distinction between observation terms
and theoretical terms.  This (so far as I, and I think anyone else
can see) is precisely the position you are taking in insisting that
"facts" ("results of observations") are independent of theory.  The
flaws to this are, I repeat, well-known.  There remain very interesting
issues in the area of observation, what it is, what it's relation to
theory is, etc.  This is an area which interested me particularly when I
was an academic, and in fact my last substantial research project
as such was an NSF grant in just this area.  I do have sympathy with
your view, but as phrased it simply will not do.

The fact that you put the question by requesting an example of how
a theory is necessary to observe something indicates a lack of
understanding and sensitivity to the real issues.  I don't need a
theory to observe *something*.  But to say (in a coherent manner
and with a clear intersubjective sense) that *what* I have observed
is an *electron* requires substantial theoretical superstructure.

A couple of years ago one of my sons built a Wilson cloud chamber
(for a science fair) and did several of the usual experiments.
We all stood around and observed the alpha particles.  No, wait.
I didn't actually see the *alpha particle*.  I saw a trail of vapor
in the chamber. No, wait some more.  How do I know that it was
*vapor* I saw?  What I saw was a white line against the black
background of the chamber.

Demonstrate this experiment to someone with no knowledge of *theory*
and you won't (can't!) get them to say

	I see a vapor trail.
	I see an alpha particle.

Now *you* can say

	What they see is a vapor trail.
	What they see is an alpha particle.

but you say this (and *justify* these assertions) based on the *theory*
that you know.  You can *say* that each of the following is a fact:

	There is a white line of something in the chamber.
	There is a vapor trail in the chamber.
	There is the track of an alpha particle in the chamber.

But there is an important *difference* among these "facts".  If you
don't recognize that difference and how it plays a role in theory
development, theory confirmation, theory acceptance and rejection;
and if you simply lump all of these "facts" together and insist that
they are all independent of theory; then you may call yourself a
scientist, but you won't be a very good one.

-- 
Gary H. Merrill  [Principal Systems Developer, C Compiler Development]
SAS Institute Inc. / SAS Campus Dr. / Cary, NC  27513 / (919) 677-8000
sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com ... !mcnc!sas!sasghm

schiller@prl.philips.nl (schiller c) writes:

>To dismiss an argument because it is "simplistic" is a
>typical example of, well, ... arrgogance !
>A statement is either true or false, but "simplistic" is not
>evidence for false.

Some of us think that requiring a statement to be either true or
false is, well, a bit simplistic. :-)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk      Computing Lab, U of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Some ideas are frost giants: pouring cold water on them helps them to grow.

schiller@prl.philips.nl (schiller c) writes:

>The discussion would become more interesting if somebody of the opposing camp
>would  give a precise example of which "theory" is necessary to observe
>something ! (Eddington surely was not able to do so ...)

Go over to a libertarian newsgroup and they will be able to assure
you that changes in money supply caused the Depression of the '30s.
They see this as an observation, because they are full of the theory
of von Mises.  Keynesians perceive no such phenomenon, however,
because they have a different theory of causal relationships within
an economy.  Of course, you may not call this related to science... :-)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk      Computing Lab, U of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Some ideas are frost giants: pouring cold water on them helps them to grow.

sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill) writes:


>The fact that you put the question by requesting an example of how
>a theory is necessary to observe something indicates a lack of
>understanding and sensitivity to the real issues.  I don't need a
>theory to observe *something*.  But to say (in a coherent manner
>and with a clear intersubjective sense) that *what* I have observed
>is an *electron* requires substantial theoretical superstructure.


No. It requires only to show that what you see here is the *same*
as what you saw in your previous experiments. No theoretical structure
is necessary, just the list of jour previous observations.


>A couple of years ago one of my sons built a Wilson cloud chamber
>(for a science fair) and did several of the usual experiments.
>We all stood around and observed the alpha particles.  No, wait.
>I didn't actually see the *alpha particle*.  I saw a trail of vapor
>in the chamber. No, wait some more.  How do I know that it was
>*vapor* I saw?  What I saw was a white line against the black
>background of the chamber.
>Demonstrate this experiment to someone with no knowledge of *theory*
>and you won't (can't!) get them to say
>	I see a vapor trail.
>	I see an alpha particle.
>Now *you* can say
>	What they see is a vapor trail.
>	What they see is an alpha particle.
>but you say this (and *justify* these assertions) based on the *theory*
>that you know.  You can *say* that each of the following is a fact:
>	There is a white line of something in the chamber.
>	There is a vapor trail in the chamber.
>	There is the track of an alpha particle in the chamber.
>But there is an important *difference* among these "facts".  If you
>don't recognize that difference and how it plays a role in theory
>development, theory confirmation, theory acceptance and rejection;
>and if you simply lump all of these "facts" together and insist that
>they are all independent of theory; then you may call yourself a
>scientist, but you won't be a very good one.

Wow ! When a sientist pretends to "see" an alpha-particle, in a Wilson chamber,
what he says is an abbreviated form of the following:

We see a track. There is a ray of something producing a track. Now let's see if
one can describe this thing in more detail. Let's put the chamber in a magnet.
Ah, the track bends. Ah, the particle is positively charged. The mass over
charge ratio has a certain value. Then one measures the mass. One gets a
certain value. Ah, in the beginning of the century, particles with the same
properties had already been seen, and then such a particle, with that charge and
that mass, was named an "alpha particle". 

(This actually was the historical path.)

If somebody sees a vapour ray with the same properties again, and directly says
: "It is an alpha particle !" He just wants to say that what he has seen now is
the same thing he has seen 30 years ago.

No theory is involved. Just the idea that you see again what you had seen
before. Naturally, you need the concept of mass and charge, and of magnetic
field. But you can repeat the same reasoning for these concepts, just as done
for the concept "alpha particle".


			Christoph Schiller

In article <schiller.726741786@hpas5>, schiller@prl.philips.nl (schiller c) writes:
|> 
|> Wow ! When a sientist pretends to "see" an alpha-particle, in a Wilson chamber,
|> what he says is an abbreviated form of the following:
|> 
|> We see a track. There is a ray of something producing a track. Now let's see if
|> one can describe this thing in more detail. Let's put the chamber in a magnet.
|> Ah, the track bends. Ah, the particle is positively charged. The mass over
|> charge ratio has a certain value. Then one measures the mass. One gets a
|> certain value. Ah, in the beginning of the century, particles with the same
|> properties had already been seen, and then such a particle, with that charge and
|> that mass, was named an "alpha particle". 
|> 
|> (This actually was the historical path.)
|> 
|> If somebody sees a vapour ray with the same properties again, and directly says
|> : "It is an alpha particle !" He just wants to say that what he has seen now is
|> the same thing he has seen 30 years ago.
|> 
|> No theory is involved. Just the idea that you see again what you had seen
|> before. Naturally, you need the concept of mass and charge, and of magnetic
|> field. But you can repeat the same reasoning for these concepts, just as done
|> for the concept "alpha particle".

I love it!  Instrumentalism lives!  Not only is no theory "involved"
according to this account.  No theory is even *necessary*.  I will not
attempt to repeat here all of the (well known and telling) criticisms
of such positions which date back to at least the '30s.  We seem, along
the way, to have lost track of various claims concerning "facts" and their
relation to theory.  Perhaps this is because the position has now been
exposed as the most naive of instrumentalist or operationalist views.  If
every claim of a scientist that employs a theoretical term (such as
'alpha particle', 'mass', 'charge', etc.) is simply *shorthand* for
a "real" observation statement, then of course there is nothing but
facts.  (Of course we are still left with those thorny questions pertaining
to why some of these facts seem more factual than others, and why some
of these facts can be used as *evidence* for others.)

For perhaps a different view of the relation of facts (whatever they may
be) to theory, consider the following quotation fragment:

	Are quarks actually real objects? ...  One atomic spectroscopist
	[... who has been searching for quarks ...]  has not yet seen any,
	nor have any been found at very high energies in cosmic rays.  So
	we must face the likelihood that quarks are not real.

	Actually that is just as well; mathematical quarks are even easier
	to work with than real ones, because certain restrictions imposed
	by reality of the particles can be dispensed with.  And working
	with mathematical quarks, we can begin to make a fairly staisfactory
	theory of the detailed properties of meson and baryon levels.

	If the quarks turn out, in fact, to be mathematical, then there
	is nothing to prevent the quark hypothesis from being equivalent
	to the bootstrap hypothesis. ...  At the present time, this seems
	a very likely state of affairs -- both hypotheses right and
	equivalent.  It is also possible, of course, that they are equivalent
	and both wrong -- or inequivalent and both wrong.  However, if
	it turns out that they are equivalent and one is right and the
	other wrong, we will probably be in trouble.

Certainly there appears to be a fairly sophisticated view of the relation
between fact (evidence?) and theory underlying these remarks.  It does not
seem to be an instrumentalist or operationalist view of theories.  Those who
can guess the identity of the author receive many points.  Those who can
guess the approximate of the quotation receive many more.  If anyone can
actually cite the source of the quotation, I'll be astounded.

-- 
Gary H. Merrill  [Principal Systems Developer, C Compiler Development]
SAS Institute Inc. / SAS Campus Dr. / Cary, NC  27513 / (919) 677-8000
sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com ... !mcnc!sas!sasghm

sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill) writes:

>In article <schiller.726741786@hpas5>, schiller@prl.philips.nl (schiller c) writes:
>|> 
>|> Wow ! When a sientist pretends to "see" an alpha-particle, in a Wilson chamber,
>|> what he says is an abbreviated form of the following:
>|> 
>|> We see a track. There is a ray of something producing a track. Now let's see if
>|> one can describe this thing in more detail. Let's put the chamber in a magnet.
>|> Ah, the track bends. Ah, the particle is positively charged. The mass over
>|> charge ratio has a certain value. Then one measures the mass. One gets a
>|> certain value. Ah, in the beginning of the century, particles with the same
>|> properties had already been seen, and then such a particle, with that charge and
>|> that mass, was named an "alpha particle". 
>|> 
>|> (This actually was the historical path.)
>|> 
>|> No theory is involved. Just the idea that you see again what you had seen
>|> before. Naturally, you need the concept of mass and charge, and of magnetic
>|> field. But you can repeat the same reasoning for these concepts, just as done
>|> for the concept "alpha particle".

>I love it!  Instrumentalism lives!  Not only is no theory "involved"
>according to this account.  No theory is even *necessary*.  I will not
>attempt to repeat here all of the (well known and telling) criticisms
>of such positions which date back to at least the '30s.  We seem, along
>the way, to have lost track of various claims concerning "facts" and their
>relation to theory.  Perhaps this is because the position has now been
>exposed as the most naive of instrumentalist or operationalist views.  If
>every claim of a scientist that employs a theoretical term (such as
>'alpha particle', 'mass', 'charge', etc.) is simply *shorthand* for
>a "real" observation statement, then of course there is nothing but
>facts.  (Of course we are still left with those thorny questions pertaining
>to why some of these facts seem more factual than others, and why some
>of these facts can be used as *evidence* for others.)


Obviously I embrace the idea that no theory is necessary. (This is to
make you angry a little more ... :-) The historical account even prooves
this to be so. 
Alpha particles have been discovered, not invented. The term "discovery"
expresses the fact that the observation was *unexpected*, in other words,
that there was *no* theory beforehand. They were found by serendipity.

Your position amounts to the denial that discoveries are possible. As a
scientist, I disagree completely. The question if such a thing as a "discovery"
is possible or not is a deep one, but science takes the clear stand that it is.
I am always interested to hear from people who deny the existence of the
possibility of discoveries.  But in my experience, and in that of the people I
see, "discovery" has a real meaning, independent of theory.

I also subscribe to the idea that every theoretical term (such as
'alpha particle', 'mass', 'charge', etc.) is simply *shorthand* for
observations. This is the way physics and the other sciences have grown
and have been developed. 

Btw, "mass of an object"  means "difficulty to move it",
"charge of an object" means "strength with which it moves when approached 
by a stick which was previously stroken by a cat fur". 
These *are* shorthand for observations.

So let me sum with a challenge : can you give a concept in physics which 
is NOT a shorthand for observations ?


 
	  		Christoph Schiller

In article <schiller.726827765@hpas5>, schiller@prl.philips.nl (schiller c) writes:

|> Obviously I embrace the idea that no theory is necessary. (This is to
|> make you angry a little more ... :-) The historical account even prooves

Not at *all* angry, my dear sir.  Just more and more amused.  And *greatly*
puzzled that someone who calls himself a "scientist" can so uncritically
embrace such an inadequate view.

|> this to be so. 
|> Alpha particles have been discovered, not invented. The term "discovery"
|> expresses the fact that the observation was *unexpected*, in other words,
|> that there was *no* theory beforehand. They were found by serendipity.
|> 
|> Your position amounts to the denial that discoveries are possible. As a
|> scientist, I disagree completely. The question if such a thing as a "discovery"
|> is possible or not is a deep one, but science takes the clear stand that it is.
|> I am always interested to hear from people who deny the existence of the
|> possibility of discoveries.  But in my experience, and in that of the people I
|> see, "discovery" has a real meaning, independent of theory.

The points at dispute are *quite* independent of the issues involved in
the debate over a realist or anti-realist interpretation of scientific
theories.  Again, you have mised the point and attributed to me a position
I do not hold.

|> I also subscribe to the idea that every theoretical term (such as
|> 'alpha particle', 'mass', 'charge', etc.) is simply *shorthand* for
|> observations. This is the way physics and the other sciences have grown
|> and have been developed. 

Oh dear.  This will not do.  It will not do at all.  It has not done for
about 50 years now.

|> Btw, "mass of an object"  means "difficulty to move it",

Or perhaps it means "difficulty to stop it from moving".  Or perhaps it
means "difficulty in changing its direction".  What it *means* is a feature
of the *laws* in which 'mass' appears -- laws in which 'force', 'energy',
'charge', etc. also appear.

|> "charge of an object" means "strength with which it moves when approached 
|> by a stick which was previously stroken by a cat fur". 
|> These *are* shorthand for observations.
|> 
|> So let me sum with a challenge : can you give a concept in physics which 
|> is NOT a shorthand for observations ?

Sure.  Pick any one.  That's the example.  I wonder this:  Are you in fact
familiar with the vast literature in this area while you choose to reject
the well known criticisms and counterexamples to your views for some
rational reason?  Or are you ignorant of this literature and simply clinging
to your own view based on your "intuition" of how things are?


-- 
Gary H. Merrill  [Principal Systems Developer, C Compiler Development]
SAS Institute Inc. / SAS Campus Dr. / Cary, NC  27513 / (919) 677-8000
sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com ... !mcnc!sas!sasghm

In article <schiller.726827765@hpas5>, schiller@prl.philips.nl (schiller c) writes:

By the way, you haven't made any comment on the quotation on quarks
I posted earlier concerning how it either is compatible or incompatible
your view of fact and theory.  Nor have you made a guess as to the
source of the quotation.  Care to try for both of these?

-- 
Gary H. Merrill  [Principal Systems Developer, C Compiler Development]
SAS Institute Inc. / SAS Campus Dr. / Cary, NC  27513 / (919) 677-8000
sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com ... !mcnc!sas!sasghm