reifying "blue"

[William Beaty <billb@ESKIMO.COM>]

I hope this message isn't too acrimonious for PHYS-L


On Wed, 8 May 2002, Jim Green wrote:

> > If energy is a property of objects can I buy
> > the property without buying the object?
>
> No -- You can't buy "blue" without buying the paint bucket.

One small thing that always has irritated me: your example of "blue" is
misleading.  It's misleading because "blue" is not a conserved property.
We're discussing the reification of conserved properties such as energy,
not general properties such as "blue."

Blue paint is a persuasive analogy.  However, isn't our goal to uncover
the truth rather than to persuade?  In my opinion, intentionally using
blue paint is FAR too close to obfuscation-based persuasion.  Politicians
and lawyers use debating tricks to hide the flaws in their positions; to
make them look better than they really are... while scientists try to
expose their own flaws, and try to make their positions look exactly as
good/bad as they really are.  (Some even go overboard in highlighting
their own flaws, which I see as a good thing because we humans are so
tempted to do the opposite.)

Using the example of blue paint is a good way to make your opponents look
stupid.  But we're not stupid at all, because we're NOT talking about the
blue of paint, we're talking about conserved properties which are a whole
different story.  Why not expose this issue directly, rather than using
the blue paint analogy which hides it?  It will especially mislead any
PHYS-L members who are new to the debate.

Do you rely on your opponents to point out this error every time you
discuss "blue?"  If so, I must note that law debates are based on the
"combat" model.  In these, persuasion and obfuscation are perfectly
acceptable tools, and it's up to the opponents to block them.  Scientific
debades are supposedly based on self-criticism and lowered defenses, where
the goal is to expose the truth, even if it means we help the "enemy"
prove us wrong in front of an audience.

A less misleading energy-analog would involve some conserved property such
as mass or charge:

  "I can't sell you a bucket of charge unless I sell you a bucket of
   protons."

  "I can't sell you a bucket of mass unless I sell you a bucket of
   molecules."


No, these don't have the persuasive power of the "blue paint" analogy, but
neither do they carry the misleading aspect.



(((((((((((((((((( ( (  (   (    (O)    )   )  ) ) )))))))))))))))))))
William J. Beaty                            SCIENCE HOBBYIST website
billb@eskimo.com                            http://amasci.com
EE/programmer/sci-exhibits   science projects, tesla, weird science
Seattle, WA  206-789-0775    sciclub-list freenrg-L vortex-L webhead-L