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]

Reification



Leigh, can we talk??? At least can we babble for a moment???

I am not sure how to use the word reification: the force seems to be that I
am thinking of something that is abstract and I use language as if the
thing were substantive. Then of course we need to define "abstract" .. but
not now:

For example, people often talk about "faith" as if it were a thing inside
them -- as if "faith" were a "substance". Now most of those people realize
that despite what they feel, they don't think of "faith" the same way that
they do orange juice. Most feel that "faith" is an abstract idea not a
substance, but they may use language as if it were. They reify the concept.

We have said that we do the same here on the list (and the world does it
disturbingly often) with reference to "energy". Some want to use language
that has energy moving from place to place or even flowing as if it were a
fluid of some sort. You and I (and some others) agree that this usage is
inappropriate -- that "energy" is a _property_ of a system whose magnitude
can be changed -- but it doesn't move. Some reify the abstract concept of
"energy".

But where does the problem stop?

We have "charge" (an abstraction of a property) moving -- yes charged
particles can move but not "charge" per se.

We have "mass" (an abstraction of a property) moving -- yes massive
particles can move but not "mass" per se.

A blue object can move but not "blue" per se.

After awhile we would have nothing moving. Everything is an abstraction in
one sense or another. What sorts of things would you say should be reified
and which not?

===

You and I have frequently said that the concept of "heat" is often reified
-- that some want to think of "heat" as a kind of caloric fluid and have it
move from place to place. Some even want to think of it as "energy" of
some sort and have that energy move, thus compounding the problem to an
extreme. But I think that this is not "reification"; these people don't
just mis-use the language, they misunderstand the physics. Heating is a
"real" action not an abstraction. It is "done" to a system -- the same as
"work" is done to a system. So we need another word for what some do to
the concept of "heat": Personify? No. Anthropomorphize? No. How about
substanceify? OK, Reify!

Best wishes,

Jim



Jim Green
mailto:JMGreen@sisna.com
http://users.sisna.com/jmgreen