Also called the conventionalist interpretation of physics success this is a main counterargument against the ni-miracles thesis i.e physics success cannot attributes to biz are epistemology or Luck but it having endorsed a proper, rigorous and fruiitious epistemology
Although there are other arguments, like the realist argument, I believe it is the stronger counterargument to the idealization of physics science's prowess.
No, the work of physics is not to define, it cannot be included in the definition of beings.
Physics picks out entities and definitions that satisfy it.
I had already read Philipp Frank's book on the philosophy of science before entering Stanford as a physics major. I was already prepared to view science as a collection of "useful fictions." Keep in mind that "fiction" is a cognate or derivative of Latin "facere" which means "to make." My professors never spoke of "laws." It was always "models."
I also learned that elementary Physics dealt with geometrical lines that cannot exist because a line has has no width and no thickness, but even the finest instrument maker scribes lines that have width and depth. Physics at that level deals with "rigid rods" that don't exist either because there is space between each and every atom on iron in the rod.
Physicists learned the clarifying utility of operational definitions. A geometrical circle is a kind of line, so it doesn't exist. But I can tell you or demonstrate to you how to make an approximation of a circle that is good enough for practical purposes. All you need is a nail, a length of cord, and some kind of pointed instrument tied to the end of the cord remote from the end looped around the nail.
Physics does not get to pick out things that satisfy it. Physics tries to make fictions that would satisfy nature. Physics was satisfied with its fictions until it hit the ultraviolet catastrophe prediction that classical physics made. It was self-satisfied until nature confounded it. It doesn't matter how much of a conflict of notes such ideas as a subatomic particle with both positive and negative spins may assault humans with. Nature says, "Deal with it."
At one point physics had a "raisin pudding" picture of the atom, but experiment showed that lots there is lots of space between nucleus and electrons. Well, how about a solar system model then? But the "planets" should all plow into the "sun" almost instantly. We ended up with quantum mechanics, and it maintained things that Einstein could never accept. He died still trying to make physics fit his intuition. The universe probably liked Einstein, but it wouldn't change just for him. ;-)
- Badges
- Science topic