Re: more squiggly lines

[Alan G Isaac <aisaac@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, 29 Jul 2002 18:07:31 -0400 Gunnar Tomasson <gunnar.tomasson@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> My offer stands:

>>> I shall be pleased to respond to any substantive comment you may have on
> my
>>> proposition that Newton's Equations were, are, and will ever remain
>>> DESCRIPTIVE - that is, NON-EXPLANATORY - of observed orbital mechanics.


But you are not pleased to do so. I said:
    So perhaps you are claiming merely that some
    descriptions are not explanatory and that while Newton felt himself to
    be both explaining and describing planetary motion, you know better:
    he was really giving *only* a description.  On the face of it we can
    certainly think of ways to test this. (Does his theory make
    predictions about the behavior of the undisturbed system or is it
    purely historical? Are some of these predictions "novel" (i.e., not
    simply a description of previously known facts). Does his theory make
    prediction about the effects of disturbances to the system (e.g., the
    passage of a comet)? Etc.)  By the time we are done answering such
    questions it becomes clear that you have removed far too much from
    the semantic realm of 'explanatory' to retain even the most tenuous
    links to ordinary usage.

You did not respond.  A natural response would have been to suggest
how the evident responses to that series of questions can be
reconciled with i. your proposal that Newton's theory is not
"explanatory" and ii. some notion that you are using the word
'explanatory' in a sense compatible with ordinary usage.
(Oh I suppose I should mention that the examples are not meant
to propose a conflation of prediction and explanation, just so
we can avoid spending time on that.)

> But, as may have dawned on you, another shoe is set to drop as soon as you
> take issue with this proposition.

Not at all.  You repeatedly fail to defend your untenable view,
and then repeatedly claim that you are willing to.  At this point I have
given you pages of commentary and argument to respond to.

> And, of course, the point should not be lost on anyone on the PKT list that
> your construction of Newton's Equations and Words happens to accord with
> your construction of the equation stuff which comprises your intellectual
> capital.

That is not argument.  It is just attempted ad hominem.
I am willing to go that route if you would find it fun.
But for now I'll just observe that it would apparently
surprise you to learn that I have publications with no
equations in them.  I will also observe that even if you
explain *why* someone offers a particular argument
(which you did not in this case), that does not amount
to an answer to the argument.

If you do not like "my" construction of Newton's words (let us please
be clear that I am claiming no originality for it---quite the
opposite), why don't you start by showing how your (admittedly
original) construal in the post I first responded to can be reconciled
with the Newton quote I offered:
    "And to us it is enough that gravity does really exist, and act
    according to the laws which we have explained, and abundantly serves
    to account for all the motions of the celestial bodies, and of our
    sea."
I would find it quite entertaining to see an attempt to claim that a
theory that relies on a force that "really exists" and formulates the
laws according to which that really existing force really does act and
thereby accounts for all the motions of the celestial bodies can be
construed as "non-explanatory of observed orbital mechanics".

Also, if you would like a cite or two backing up "my" reading of the
Newton quote that you offered, I'll happily dig something up.

Cheers,
Alan