Re: more squiggly lines

[Alan G Isaac <aisaac@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, 30 Jul 2002 09:01:05 -0400 Gunnar Tomasson <gunnar.tomasson@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Substitute "ultimate explanations" for "ultimate secrets" and Alan Isaac's
> point reduces to the proposition that Newton's Equations give us oxymoronic
> "pen-ultimate explanations."

Of course not.  It "reduces" to what it always was: the claim that
Newton's theories, whether or not expressed in mathematical formalism,
were intended to be and were in fact explanatory.  (And since Mason
has questioned the relevance of this discussion to pkt, it may be worth
being explcit that the relevance lies right in the previous sentence.)

Here you provide another suggestion that your odd use of the word
'explanation' relegates it to the mind of god.  For some reason you
wish to pretend the perfectly good ordinary use made of this word
and your bizarre special use have something in common, and then use
this to critique the ordinary use.  Although you have yet to confirm
my suspicion explicitly, you keep saying things that seem to imply
that you believe something like:
   a. something is an explanation only if it is a true explanation
   b. something is a true explanation only if it asserts only "real
      facts"
   c. something is a "real fact" only if it is an accurate description
      of the true state of the world
   d. the true state of the world is know only to the mind of god
 therefore
   e. nothing known to the mind of man is an explanation
Unfortunately, aside from a problem of logical validity,
of all the premises, only (d) is not obviously false.
The others are simply misuses of language, although
explaining what is wrong with (c) to someone to whom it is not
obvious of course requires a rather extensive discussion.

> Second.  As for Newton's grasp on philosophical issues, the record speaks
> for itself.  And, as I expect to elaborate in a brief response to Alan's
> latest message, the record supports E. A. Burtt's conclusion that, as
> philosopher, Newton was "second rate."

Now Gunnar, you're trying to have your cake and eat it too.  I have
not made any claims for Newton's philosophical expertise. On the
contrary, I explcitly questioned how useful it is to cite physicists
on epistemology.  And of course I was led to do that by the fact that
*you* cited Newton.  The fact that marshalling your particular
citation of Newton in support of your peculiar epistemological claims
requires a serious misreading of Newton does not change the fact that
*you* appealed to him as an authority.

Still I suppose this is progress: your newfound desire to downgrade
Newton as an epistemologist does indicate that you have belatedly
discovered that he offers no support for your claims.

Cheers,
Alan