question from a colleague

[George Spagna <gspagna@rmc.edu>]

In a running discussion with a colleague (an economist) he raises the
question of what limits physicists and other "hard" scientists place on
translating theory and observation into an objective "reality".  He
suggests that we have a different, perhaps quantifiable grasp on the nature
of reality than those in disciplines less formally tied to experiment and
prediction.

I gave him a few notions and some suggested readings - but let me relay his
latest query to this group.  It might start a new thread for discussion!

He writes:

> I'm not really interested in waves or theories in themselves. I'm more
> interested in any arguments made by physicists which "necessarily" have
> implications for claims about "knowledge" or what constitutes "reality."
>
> How do they make the "leap" from a bunch of random or non-random particle or
> wave behavior to the area of what constitutes "human reality."
>
> I like aggressive arguments which make claims boldly and force me to either
> accept or reject their positions.


George Spagna           **********************************************
Department of Physics   *                                            *
Randolph-Macon College  *    "I can explain it for you,              *
P.O. Box 5005           *                                            *
Ashland, VA 23005-5505  *       I can't understand it for you."      *
                        *                                            *
phone: (804) 752-7344   *                 - Anonymous                *
FAX:   (804) 752-4724   *                                            *
e-mail: gspagna@rmc.edu **********************************************
http://www.rmc.edu/~gspagna/gspagna.html