Re: [Phys-l] bombastic put downs--was F causes a

[Rick Tarara <rtarara@saintmarys.edu>]

Yet another example of why few people want to post here anymore--not wishing 
to be held up to JD's ridicule.  It would seem that the ultimate naked 
appeal to authority is JD appealing to the word of JD.  Enough with the 
bombastic put-downs!  The 'Fundamentalist' here is JD, refusing to 
acknowledge the slightest usefulness or (heaven forbid) legitimacy of any 
ideas other than his.  I, for one, am getting very tired of it.  There are 
other physics lists.

Rick


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John Denker" <jsd@av8n.com>

> > It is clear to me that "compelled" means to cause, and that "impressed"
> > means from the environment.  The acceleration is a property of the body
> > but the forces producing it must come from other bodies in its
> > environment.
>
> 1) I object to the form of the argument.  It is a naked appeal to
> authority.  Are we fundamentalists, or scientists?  What's next ...
> are we going to discuss four-legged insects because they are mentioned
> in Leviticus 11?
>
>
> 2) As is so verrry often the case with appeals to authority, we must
> consider the possibility that the quote has distorted by taking it
> out of context, mistranslated, and/or simply misquoted.
>
> In this case, try going to
>   http://humanum.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/Lexis/Latin/
> and typing "cause" in the search box.  I got back 37 responses,
> including not only /causa/, /infero/, /propter/ and suchlike, but
> also many words that are only distantly connected to the idea of
> "cause" ... but still not including /cogo/ (the root of /cogitur/).
> If Uncle Ike had wanted to talk about "cause", he could have done
> so ... but he didn't.
>
>
> 3) "It is clear"????  Anything can be made "clear" by keeping only
> the favorable evidence (no matter how weak) and ignoring the opposing
> evidence (no matter how strong).
>
> We should not forget that this is the same Isaac Newton who, in response
> to a question specifically about causes and mechanisms, answered 
> "Hypotheses
> non fingo."
>
> Also IF (big IF!) we are going to play the fundamentalist game, let's play
> it properly.  Let's not forget that Newton was greatly indebted to 
> Galileo,
> who (as previously discussed) very explicitly dismissed causality 
> arguments
> as unhelpful.
>
> OTOH I suppose I shouldn't be surprised to find that people who play an
> unscientific game would play it improperly.
> _______________________________________________
> Forum for Physics Educators
> Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
> https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l