Doug Sax on wire
On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 09:16:02 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
Some of the audible differences in
capacitors, for example, are clearly due to things we
can easily measure.
No, all of them.
Rather a sweeping generalization, the sweepingness of
which gets to the heart of the philosophy of science, and its
fundamental difference from religion.
Prove me wrong with a working example.
A reasonable demand if confined to our contemporary understanding.
But science *must* exceed our current understanding, by definition
a temporary thing. Our current understanding must be considered as
nothing more than the best model available to us, and *not* as a
revealed truth. Instead, our current model of _anything and
everything_ is properly thought of as temporarily useful, but
ultimately incorrect.
You're demanding, in effect, a self-contradiction from within your own
model. I'm demanding that you consider your model to be fundamentally
incomplete. We have different religions. That's life.
More specifically, no such statement can be made in
science, but is often made in religion.
No, it is not a sweeping generalization in the context that it is stated.
That context is within your model of reality. I only suggest
that our models, yours and mine and those of folks who'll come
after us, will *always* be wrong or at least mostly wrong.
That's science.
To insist that our personal, or even a well documented and
generally accepted, model has an objective reality is religion.
Science is *not* a method of hammering down loose nails;
it's a process for discovering which nails might be loose.
That's true, but how is it relevant to the discussion at hand?
A good question. The word "wire" in the title does seem to bring
out the wacky philosopher in *some* of us. Hey! I resemble that
remark!
Let me try one last time, and I'll bow out of this thread:
Science insists that we consider our models to be fundamentally,
finally *wrong*, in ways that we don't yet appreciate. We're a
modelling species - couldn't take a step without it - and have
a compelling need to believe our models. But it's an illusion.
Reality is forever beyond our grasp and reserved for the gods
and goddesses.
Belief in our models, belief in gods and goddesses... both
deep, deep within us, but not science.
Much thanks, as always,
Chris Hornbeck
|