Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

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



Hi Rick-
I don't think your comment fairly describes what JD said. If you think that objecting to "appeal to authority" is a J.D. idiosyncracy, then, in my experience, you are far outside of the mainstream of people who deal in logical discussion of scientific principles.
If, on the other hand, you are objecting to the phraseology of J. D.'s objection, then your own choice of words fails to make that point.
Regards,
Jack

On Wed, 10 May 2006, Rick Tarara wrote:

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

_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l


--
"Trust me. I have a lot of experience at this."
General Custer's unremembered message to his men,
just before leading them into the Little Big Horn Valley