Re: [Phys-L] nature +- observations +- models

[Joseph Bellina <inquirybellina@comcast.net>]

Ai contraire the experiment is not just what it is rather it is the product of design based on a particular heir ethical framework and hence is not objective in the naive sense that one might suppose.  The problem runs much deeper than you suggest

Best

Joe 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Aug 23, 2016, at 11:27 AM, LaMontagne, Bob <RLAMONT@providence.edu> wrote:
>
> The experiment is what it is. What is biased by theory is our interpretation of the result. That does not inherently stop someone who can think clearly enough to jump trough the restraints of the theory and perceive the underlying reality.
>
> I accept that physics in it's current form is just a collection of models. I wouldn't present it any other way in my classes. But I see no inherent reason that physics cannot evolve (or that a new approach entirely may develop) to allow us to see beyond the models. Statements that we somehow never will move beyond models just seems to me to be pure opinion.
>
> I find it fascinating that Newton was able to develop his physics from two entirely different approaches: geometrically and through calculus. To me at least, the ability of seemingly different models to come up with the same results seems to imply that an explainable reality is out there.
>
> Bob at PC
> ________________________________________
> From: Phys-l <phys-l-bounces@www.phys-l.org> on behalf of Joseph Bellina <inquirybellina@comcast.net>
> Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2016 10:56 AM
> To: Phys-L@Phys-L.org
> Subject: Re: [Phys-L] nature +- observations +- models
>
> Bob,
> I think there is a reason and it lies in the inherent inductive nature of science.
> To be more specific, every experiment we do is biased by the theory that it is based on, and every theory is underdetermined by experiments.  So we just muddle along, getting better, we hope, as we go.
>
> best,
>
> joe
>
> Joseph J. Bellina, Jr. Ph.D.
> Retired Professor of Physics
> Co-Director, Northern Indiana Science, Mathematics, and Engineering Collaborative (NISMEC)
> Consultant I-STEM Network
> 574-276-8294
> inquirybellina@comcast.net
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 23, 2016, at 10:20 AM, LaMontagne, Bob <RLAMONT@providence.edu> wrote:
> >
> > The statement that we can only arrive at reality incrementally reminds me too much of Zeno's Achilles and the Tortoise argument. I see no rigid reason why the incremental argument will always have to apply and that we can never get to the finish.
> >
> > Bob at PC
> > ________________________________________
> > From: Phys-l <phys-l-bounces@www.phys-l.org> on behalf of Todd Pedlar <pedlto01@luther.edu>
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2016 10:12 AM
> > To: Phys-L@phys-l.org