Mark Walker writes
> To say that a theory is approximately true might commit one to
> some notion of verisimilitude but why certainty?
Because why use the word "approximately" unless one was trying
to prevent the listener from thinking "absolutely"? That all
of our theories are, OF COURSE, only approximate should not
need to be said. To even think differently reveals a sore
misapprehension of how things work. We should unhesitatingly
say "planets move around the sun in ellipses", "ice melts at
32 degrees Fahrenheit", "continents float on underlying strata",
"heavy objects fall at the same rate as light objects", and all
the other very hard-won pieces of scientific knowledge.
So you think that some of these are simply true, and don't
need further elaboration? Then work on this one: "heavy
objects in the Earth's gravity do *not* fall at the same
rate as light objects, but actually fall faster". This is
true, but is stupid and useless sophistry (as I'll explain
in another paragraph, below).
Kepler's discovery that planets move in ellipses is so wonderful,
so profound, and so revolutionary that it is a crime to say
"planets move only *approximately!* in elliptical orbits".
Perfect accuracy for sentences is a chimera. "The Earth is
round" actually conveys more intelligence per syllable than
"the Earth is approximately spherical" does.
As promised, if you didn't figure it out, the reason that some
pedantic moronic sophist could argue that heavy objects fall
faster than light objects is that if we take into account the
tiny force of the objects on the Earth as well as the
force of the Earth on the objects, we see that F is slightly
greater in the case of the heavy object! But, as I say, anyone
who burst into an elementary school room and shouts "That's wrong!"
when the teacher says that heavy and light objects fall at the
same speeds, should be prosecuted.
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:21 MDT