Re: Cause and Effect

[Leigh Palmer <palmer@SFU.CA>]

> Bob wrote:
> > > /// students ... may mistakenly interpret "cause" to support their
> > > belief that accelerations come after the force is applied.
> At 15:00 10/24/00 -0700, Leigh responded:
> > Careful! You're reifying. Acceleration is a formal intellectual
> > construct; it is not a real thing.
> ...
> > Leigh
>
>
> As far as I can tell, Leigh takes the position that force is real and
> acceleration is a construct.

You're being mischievous, Brian. I referred to the formally constructed
acceleration as being abstract, as I clarified in the sentence which
followed those quoted above. The acceleration of any atom I take to
be real. It is an aspect of the motion of a concrete object.

> It follows that it is not reification to refer to a real thing in
> concrete terms, and it is reification to refer to a construct in
> concrete terms.

More or less correct. Figurative reification is OK so long as one does
not lose sight of the fact that that is what is going on. In the piece
on which I was commenting (Robert Cohen's, I think) I felt the line
had been crossed.

Leigh