The Color of an Apple

[Kurt Keefner]

Here's a couple of points: 1. Rand rejected the distinction between primary and secondary qualities because she said _in effect_ that all qualities were secondary, i.e. that all qualities were the product of the "marriage" of the mind and the world (to use Plato's metaphor).

2. She rejected the distinction because only science, and not philosophy can tell us whether a "primary" quality like extension is what it seems. In point of fact, science tells us that extension is NOT what it seems because solid objects are mostly empty space (or whatever's between atoms--I don't mean to enter into the debate as to whether a vacuum can exist, just to point out that solid objects are not "continuous" in the way in which they seem).

3. As either Kelley or Peikoff says (I forget which), shape might be more like color than we believe. We won't know until we've discovered the ultimate nature of reality.

4. Being a trichromat is not privileged over being a dichromat (color-blind). They are equally valid ways of apprehending reality, although one is richer. Colors are not intrinsic, but objective, i.e. they depend on the relationship of object and the objective nature of the subject.

I hope this clears things up a little.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Hey Kurt!

Welcome to OL.

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

3. As either Kelley or Peikoff says (I forget which), shape might be more like color than we believe. We won't know until we've discovered the ultimate nature of reality.

Ain't going to happen.

We are 16 orders of magnitude short of Planck Length. We have not got the economic resources to get 2 orders of magnitude closer......

[merjet]

The Primary-Secondary Quality Distinction by me, with many subsequent comments.

[Guyau]

Hear, hear! to Merlin's #29.

Welcome, Kurt, to OL. I bet this is a place you'll gather and give some treasure.

1. Rand was conceding too much to Berkeley and to Kant on the station of primary qualities, and was really contradicting what she had earlier said about space.

2. Rand rejected that sophism about "mostly empty space" going back to at least her early days with Nathan and Barbara.

3. It was Peikoff, under Rand's superintendence. It is a concession to Kant, not in fact required by Rand's philosophy and a point on which one should fight Kant as one would fight for one's life.

4. Sounds right.

[Brant Gaede]

Space is distance only and exists only as another way to measure something--that is, distance in its case. As an inch, a foot and a yard are only epistemological constructs so too is "space." An expanding universe is only the universe being stretched. As far as we know by internal forces pushing out. So far that's all we can know. "Distance" raises the question of what distance? Space is not reducible to units. It just is and in the same sense that there is a distance between two planets. It helps to think of that as a space instead of distance for when you think of distance you think of what distance which makes your mind work out of that context which may not be desirable for lack of a certain necessity.

The idea that distance exists is true if the epistemological is mixed up with the metaphysical. It should be understood it's a shortcut in thinking with the metaphysical as the primary referent. The metaphysicality of a thinking brain is not the comprehended result, for that is purely the epistemological aspect of a thought. One is needed for the other, but one is not the other.

"Empty space" between the aforementioned two planets implies there is nothing between them except distance. In reality there is no distance and there is something between them--radiation at least.

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

Space is distance only and exists only as another way to measure something--that is, distance in its case. As an inch, a foot and a yard are only epistemological constructs so too is "space." An expanding universe is only the universe being stretched. As far as we know by internal forces pushing out. So far that's all we can know. "Distance" raises the question of what distance? Space is not reducible to units. It just is and in the same sense that there is a distance between two planets. It helps to think of that as a space instead of distance for when you think of distance you think of what distance which makes your mind work out of that context which may not be desirable for lack of a certain necessity.

The idea that distance exists is true if the epistemological is mixed up with the metaphysical. It should be understood it's a shortcut in thinking with the metaphysical as the primary referent. The metaphysicality of a thinking brain is not the comprehended result, for that is purely the epistemological aspect of a thought. One is needed for the other, but one is not the other.

"Empty space" between the aforementioned two planets implies there is nothing between them except distance. In reality there is no distance and there is something between them--radiation at least.

--Brant

mathematical space is distance and abstract relationships. Physical space may have some kind of substance. It bends.

[Brant Gaede]

Space is distance only and exists only as another way to measure something--that is, distance in its case. As an inch, a foot and a yard are only epistemological constructs so too is "space." An expanding universe is only the universe being stretched. As far as we know by internal forces pushing out. So far that's all we can know. "Distance" raises the question of what distance? Space is not reducible to units. It just is and in the same sense that there is a distance between two planets. It helps to think of that as a space instead of distance for when you think of distance you think of what distance which makes your mind work out of that context which may not be desirable for lack of a certain necessity.

The idea that distance exists is true if the epistemological is mixed up with the metaphysical. It should be understood it's a shortcut in thinking with the metaphysical as the primary referent. The metaphysicality of a thinking brain is not the comprehended result, for that is purely the epistemological aspect of a thought. One is needed for the other, but one is not the other.

"Empty space" between the aforementioned two planets implies there is nothing between them except distance. In reality there is no distance and there is something between them--radiation at least.

--Brant

mathematical space is distance and abstract relationships. Physical space may have some kind of substance. It bends.

You can bend neither space nor time except in your head. "It bends" cannot for there is no "it." You also cannot bend three feet or three inches. Only what is of a corporeal nature can actually bend whatever is bending it. The "substance" that defines or dresses out space is not space or the space. That substance is what might be bendable.

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

You can bend neither space nor time except in your head. "It bends" cannot for there is no "it." You also cannot bend three feet or three inches. Only what is of a corporeal nature can actually bend whatever is bending it. The "substance" that defines or dresses out space is not space or the space. That substance is what might be bendable.

--Brant

Eddington corroborated empirically Einstein's theory of space bending in 1919. Space-Time bends. Light which follows the shortest distance possible in the physical manifold bent around the son just as Einstein predicted That means space-time bent, In fact, gravitation is the result of the bending of space-time which mass causes. It is not a force.

Piece of advice. When your philosophical convictions collide with a replicated and corroborate scientific result, dump your philosophical convictions.

[Brant Gaede]

You can bend neither space nor time except in your head. "It bends" cannot for there is no "it." You also cannot bend three feet or three inches. Only what is of a corporeal nature can actually bend whatever is bending it. The "substance" that defines or dresses out space is not space or the space. That substance is what might be bendable.

--Brant

Eddington corroborated empirically Einstein's theory of space bending in 1919. Space-Time bends. Light which follows the shortest distance possible in the physical manifold bent around the son just as Einstein predicted That means space-time bent, In fact, gravitation is the result of the bending of space-time which mass causes. It is not a force.

Piece of advice. When your philosophical convictions collide with a replicated and corroborate scientific result, dump your philosophical convictions.

Peace of advice. All that "replicated and corroborate" is tentative. There is neither space nor time. They don't exist as such. They are epistemological parasites on reality. Einstein called "it" space-time to make sense of nonsense. Another theory will come along that will sweep in what works and dump Einstein's philosophy.

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

You can bend neither space nor time except in your head. "It bends" cannot for there is no "it." You also cannot bend three feet or three inches. Only what is of a corporeal nature can actually bend whatever is bending it. The "substance" that defines or dresses out space is not space or the space. That substance is what might be bendable.

--Brant

Eddington corroborated empirically Einstein's theory of space bending in 1919. Space-Time bends. Light which follows the shortest distance possible in the physical manifold bent around the son just as Einstein predicted That means space-time bent, In fact, gravitation is the result of the bending of space-time which mass causes. It is not a force.

Piece of advice. When your philosophical convictions collide with a replicated and corroborate scientific result, dump your philosophical convictions.

Peace of advice. All that "replicated and corroborate" is tentative. There is neither space nor time. They don't exist as such. They are epistemological parasites on reality. Einstein called "it" space-time to make sense of nonsense. Another theory will come along that will sweep in what works and dump Einstein's philosophy.

--Brant

That standards of physical science are at least three orders of magnitude greater than those of philosophy

[Brant Gaede]

So what? Go tell Einstein. He's the one who mixed them up. Space and time have no properties. He was not describing space-time properties but something else. So far as far as we know that was enough because things work. "Space-time" is just a label he slapped on to what he was about. I've no qualifications to discuss his physics but this is philosophy and he didn't stop with this. Supposedly qua physics but actually qua philosophy he stated that "God does not play dice" (about Quantum Mechanics?). I'm not qualified to discuss that either--that is, the physics.

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

So what? Go tell Einstein. He's the one who mixed them up. Space and time have no properties. He was not describing space-time properties but something else. So far as far as we know that was enough because things work. "Space-time" is just a label he slapped on to what he was about. I've no qualifications to discuss his physics but this is philosophy and he didn't stop with this. Supposedly qua physics but actually qua philosophy he stated that "God does not play dice" (about Quantum Mechanics?). I'm not qualified to discuss that either--that is, the physics.

--Brant

Every time a GPS transducer gives your correct location to within ten feet, it is corroboration of Einstein's conception of the space-time manifold. Einstein was right and the philosophers were wrong.

[Brant Gaede]

So what? Go tell Einstein. He's the one who mixed them up. Space and time have no properties. He was not describing space-time properties but something else. So far as far as we know that was enough because things work. "Space-time" is just a label he slapped on to what he was about. I've no qualifications to discuss his physics but this is philosophy and he didn't stop with this. Supposedly qua physics but actually qua philosophy he stated that "God does not play dice" (about Quantum Mechanics?). I'm not qualified to discuss that either--that is, the physics.

--Brant

Every time a GPS transducer gives your correct location to within ten feet, it is corroboration of Einstein's conception of the space-time manifold. Einstein was right and the philosophers were wrong.

I assume you haven't understood what I've been saying. The substance behind the label--we can call it Einstein's substance--is not being addressed. Just the label. So, let's move on. Tell me about the substance of "space-time" as opposed to what occupies space. Tell about time except as a measurement of motion. Add it all up: what is it? Remember, a ruler is not 12 inches, nor a yard. It is 12 inches long or a yard long. A yard or an inch is nothing in itself. What it refers to is. So, a ruler is a yard long. Not a yard.

--Brant

can't add it up?--you can't add up nothings: thus we are talking about Einstein's philosophy, not his Theories of Relativity and not E=MC2, which I've never heard anyone challenge, and everybody knows how you feel about philosophy (my late friend Petr Beckmann felt exactly the same about philosophy as you do although he was an "anti-Einsteinian"--he wrote a book attacking Einstein's theories, Einstein Plus Two and Petr was a scientist, a physicist, with enough brains to have Edward Teller as a friend, albeit an unconvinced friend [as a layman I have to go with Einstein insofar as I understand the physics--while I think Petr was a genius, hard for me to judge for if he was it was in science, I also think he was something of a crank and it may have spilt over into his work in mathematical physics])

[BaalChatzaf]

So what? Go tell Einstein. He's the one who mixed them up. Space and time have no properties. He was not describing space-time properties but something else. So far as far as we know that was enough because things work. "Space-time" is just a label he slapped on to what he was about. I've no qualifications to discuss his physics but this is philosophy and he didn't stop with this. Supposedly qua physics but actually qua philosophy he stated that "God does not play dice" (about Quantum Mechanics?). I'm not qualified to discuss that either--that is, the physics.

--Brant

Every time a GPS transducer gives your correct location to within ten feet, it is corroboration of Einstein's conception of the space-time manifold. Einstein was right and the philosophers were wrong.

I assume you haven't understood what I've been saying. The substance behind the label--we can call it Einstein's substance--is not being addressed. Just the label. So, let's move on. Tell me about the substance of "space-time" as opposed to what occupies space. Tell about time except as a measurement of motion. Add it all up: what is it? Remember, a ruler is not 12 inches, nor a yard. It is 12 inches long or a yard long. A yard or an inch is nothing in itself. What it refers to is. So, a ruler is a yard long. Not a yard.

--Brant

can't add it up?--you can't add up nothings: thus we are talking about Einstein's philosophy, not his Theories of Relativity and not E=MC2, which I've never heard anyone challenge, and everybody knows how you feel about philosophy (my late friend Petr Beckmann felt exactly the same about philosophy as you do although he was an "anti-Einsteinian"--he wrote a book attacking Einstein's theories, Einstein PlusTwo and Petr was a scientist, a physicist, with enough brains to have Edward Teller as a friend, albeit an unconvinced friend [as a layman I have to go with Einstein insofar as I understand the physics--while I think Petr was a genius, hard for me to judge for if he was it was in science, I also think he was something of a crank and it may have spilt over into his work in mathematical physics])

Read an elementary book on special relativity. The length of the ruler as measured by someone who is moving relative to it is shorter than the length of the ruler measured by someone who is holding it.

Einstein's theories of relativity are as solidly corroborated by empirical evidence (over a 110 year period) as any scientific hypothesis every stated with the possible exception of the Second Law of Thermodynamics which is even more solidly corroborated.

And no physicist worth his Nobel Award gives two shits about philosophy, particularly metaphysics.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Brant Gaede]

So what? Go tell Einstein. He's the one who mixed them up. Space and time have no properties. He was not describing space-time properties but something else. So far as far as we know that was enough because things work. "Space-time" is just a label he slapped on to what he was about. I've no qualifications to discuss his physics but this is philosophy and he didn't stop with this. Supposedly qua physics but actually qua philosophy he stated that "God does not play dice" (about Quantum Mechanics?). I'm not qualified to discuss that either--that is, the physics.

--Brant

Every time a GPS transducer gives your correct location to within ten feet, it is corroboration of Einstein's conception of the space-time manifold. Einstein was right and the philosophers were wrong.

I assume you haven't understood what I've been saying. The substance behind the label--we can call it Einstein's substance--is not being addressed. Just the label. So, let's move on. Tell me about the substance of "space-time" as opposed to what occupies space. Tell about time except as a measurement of motion. Add it all up: what is it? Remember, a ruler is not 12 inches, nor a yard. It is 12 inches long or a yard long. A yard or an inch is nothing in itself. What it refers to is. So, a ruler is a yard long. Not a yard.

--Brant

can't add it up?--you can't add up nothings: thus we are talking about Einstein's philosophy, not his Theories of Relativity and not E=MC2, which I've never heard anyone challenge, and everybody knows how you feel about philosophy (my late friend Petr Beckmann felt exactly the same about philosophy as you do although he was an "anti-Einsteinian"--he wrote a book attacking Einstein's theories, Einstein PlusTwo and Petr was a scientist, a physicist, with enough brains to have Edward Teller as a friend, albeit an unconvinced friend [as a layman I have to go with Einstein insofar as I understand the physics--while I think Petr was a genius, hard for me to judge for if he was it was in science, I also think he was something of a crank and it may have spilt over into his work in mathematical physics])

Read an elementary book on special relativity. The length of the ruler as measured by someone who is moving relative to it is shorter than the length of the ruler measured by someone who is holding it.

Einstein's theories of relativity are as solidly corroborated by empirical evidence (over a 110 year period) as any scientific hypothesis every stated with the possible exception of the Second Law of Thermodynamics which is even more solidly corroborated.

And no physicist worth his Nobel Award gives two shits about philosophy, particularly metaphysics.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Einstein gave a "shit." Read some of what he said apart from physics. I guess fortunately for you and his relativity theories he got his Nobel for something else. Why are you bitch-slapping Einstein? Shall we discuss your philosophy about philosophy? I mean, if you don't give a shit about philosophy you don't don't give a shit about your philosophy--that's a contradiction, btw (I hope)--so why should we give a shit about your +12,000 posts in which you've waxed philosophical one way or the other for years now? Just. Like. Every. Body. Else. Who. Posts. Here. If I'm getting nasty it's because you are continually nasty to everybody else about this. What you are saying is Ayn Rand created "shit." George H. Smith toils in "shit." DO YOU EVEN BEGIN TO UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE SAYING AND YOUR LACK OF BASIC COURTESY TO EVERYBODY INCLUDING YOURSELF? I've been telling you this in nicer ways for years now. Water off a duck's back. Taking an ax and cleaving science from philosophy takes an ax to science as such for science is a completely philosophical creation and activity. We can call this the philosophy of science which makes proper and valid science possible. The metaphysics and epistemology are 100% congruent with Objectivism. Reality plus reason (plus the necessary elaborations).

One thing you overlook is corroboration by Newtonian or classical physics matching up with supposed Einsteinian relativity add-ons or by other means than any provided by Einstein. That's what Petr attempted in his book. He claimed success. I can't say if he was successful. That includes, btw, perturbations in Mercury's orbit. As for experimental contradiction of Einstein, he claimed that was a success just before he died and he referenced it in his publication Galilean Electrodynamics. He also said Einstein was dead but it would take generations to bury the corpse. (None of this has anything to do with the validity of E=MC2.) The only thing I can judge about this is, 1) Petr knew he was going to be dead in a month or two and was grasping at a straw (it was not a straw if the experiment was valid) and 2) you personally cannot judge the actual physics involved much better than I can even though you know much more about both math and physics because you have a rock hard religious attitude about Einstein to the point of not even acknowledging the validity of the principle of falsification of his theories which makes them all valid qua theories, for you simply keep repeating all of the collaboration that's been done. Admit that and we've no argument at all. Most famous of the collaborations, btw, was a scientist going to an island just off the west coast of Africa--I think it was just before WWI--where his astronomical observations confirmed relativity. Jack Wheeler wrote about this on his Internet site, "To the Point News." Wheeler, while not a physicist--you too, don't claim to be a physicist--agrees with Einstein except in one thing. He thinks his theories should not have been called "Relativity," but "The Cosmological Constant," which is the speed of light. Or, the term used superficially gave the wrong idea about what was really being addressed, hobbling the Einstein horse out of the box and since. This I don't agree with, but it gives a different perspective on Einsteinian physics which is supportive, I think, of him and which is all Jack wanted to do.

Your refusal to say that Einstein's theories are falsifiable--never mind your reason but I'd like to know it--which is the primary confirmation of them as valid theories, makes you as irritating to talk to as Greg with his religious epistemology and just as irrational. You just keep repeating yourself about confirmation. A scientific theory is a stool with three legs. One leg is the theory per se. One leg is confirmation. The third leg is the principle of falsification. Ultimately the theory works (exists qua theory) and is valid only as long as all legs are present. There may be one exception, but not necessarily--and I think here Petr may have fallen flat on his face--maybe yes, maybe no--a replacement theory not yet rendered, which does not contradict Einstein but adds to the work that Einstein did just as he added to what Newton did and which he acknowledged was exactly what he did! Einsteinian physics does not contradict Newtonian physics. All Petr said was Newtonian physics extended was all that was needed, not Einsteinian, and that therefore it was--Petr implied this if he didn't state it outright--only a matter of time before Einstein was disproved by experiment--the theories, not the confirming observations and experiments.

--Brant

and the substance of space-time?--you've yet to describe it so it can be found--theorectically found at least--you just keep saying it's there without actually telling us what the "it" is or might be, not even "might be" as if one could find an inch without a ruler or other measuring device

[Mikee]

Knowledge does not equal understanding.

[Brant Gaede]

Cute, but the algo is in the nature of the physics involved, not with what is in one's head. You cannot, nor should you try, to really teach a youngster how to ride such a bike. He might learn in a crude, stumbling way, but it would be dangerous for him and of no value to say the least. It took our instructor eight months to learn how to ride the damn thing, but only 20 minutes to relearn how to reride a normal bike. However instructional, I don't think he should have involved his young son to make his several points about young brain elasticity vs a mature brain--not with him riding a tricked out bike. Yeah, okay, it only took the kid two weeks. Now when he's 20 and riding a motorcycle and he suddenly starts doing it again in this queer way and kills himself? Who knows?

The video is great, however, and well worth watching. Your conclusions will trump mine for they'll be yours.

--Brant

but I'm not saying knowledge equals understanding nor do I quite get either supposition

[BaalChatzaf]

So what? Go tell Einstein. He's the one who mixed them up. Space and time have no properties. He was not describing space-time properties but something else. So far as far as we know that was enough because things work. "Space-time" is just a label he slapped on to what he was about. I've no qualifications to discuss his physics but this is philosophy and he didn't stop with this. Supposedly qua physics but actually qua philosophy he stated that "God does not play dice" (about Quantum Mechanics?). I'm not qualified to discuss that either--that is, the physics.

--Brant

Every time a GPS transducer gives your correct location to within ten feet, it is corroboration of Einstein's conception of the space-time manifold. Einstein was right and the philosophers were wrong.

I assume you haven't understood what I've been saying. The substance behind the label--we can call it Einstein's substance--is not being addressed. Just the label. So, let's move on. Tell me about the substance of "space-time" as opposed to what occupies space. Tell about time except as a measurement of motion. Add it all up: what is it? Remember, a ruler is not 12 inches, nor a yard. It is 12 inches long or a yard long. A yard or an inch is nothing in itself. What it refers to is. So, a ruler is a yard long. Not a yard.

--Brant

can't add it up?--you can't add up nothings: thus we are talking about Einstein's philosophy, not his Theories of Relativity and not E=MC2, which I've never heard anyone challenge, and everybody knows how you feel about philosophy (my late friend Petr Beckmann felt exactly the same about philosophy as you do although he was an "anti-Einsteinian"--he wrote a book attacking Einstein's theories, Einstein PlusTwo and Petr was a scientist, a physicist, with enough brains to have Edward Teller as a friend, albeit an unconvinced friend [as a layman I have to go with Einstein insofar as I understand the physics--while I think Petr was a genius, hard for me to judge for if he was it was in science, I also think he was something of a crank and it may have spilt over into his work in mathematical physics])

Read an elementary book on special relativity. The length of the ruler as measured by someone who is moving relative to it is shorter than the length of the ruler measured by someone who is holding it.

Einstein's theories of relativity are as solidly corroborated by empirical evidence (over a 110 year period) as any scientific hypothesis every stated with the possible exception of the Second Law of Thermodynamics which is even more solidly corroborated.

And no physicist worth his Nobel Award gives two shits about philosophy, particularly metaphysics.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Einstein gave a "shit." Read some of what he said apart from physics. I guess fortunately for you and his relativity theories he got his Nobel for something else. Why are you bitch-slapping Einstein? Shall we discuss your philosophy about philosophy? I mean, if you don't give a shit about philosophy you don't don't give a shit about your philosophy--that's a contradiction, btw (I hope)--so why should we give a shit about your +12,000 posts in which you've waxed philosophical one way or the other for years now? Just. Like. Every. Body. Else. Who. Posts. Here. If I'm getting nasty it's because you are continually nasty to everybody else about this. What you are saying is Ayn Rand created "shit." George H. Smith toils in "shit." DO YOU EVEN BEGIN TO UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE SAYING AND YOUR LACK OF BASIC COURTESY TO EVERYBODY INCLUDING YOURSELF? I've been telling you this in nicer ways for years now. Water off a duck's back. Taking an ax and cleaving science from philosophy takes an ax to science as such for science is a completely philosophical creation and activity. We can call this the philosophy of science which makes proper and valid science possible. The metaphysics and epistemology are 100% congruent with Objectivism. Reality plus reason (plus the necessary elaborations).

One thing you overlook is corroboration by Newtonian or classical physics matching up with supposed Einsteinian relativity add-ons or by other means than any provided by Einstein. That's what Petr attempted in his book. He claimed success. I can't say if he was successful. That includes, btw, perturbations in Mercury's orbit. As for experimental contradiction of Einstein, he claimed that was a success just before he died and he referenced it in his publication Galilean Electrodynamics. He also said Einstein was dead but it would take generations to bury the corpse. (None of this has anything to do with the validity of E=MC2.) The only thing I can judge about this is, 1) Petr knew he was going to be dead in a month or two and was grasping at a straw (it was not a straw if the experiment was valid) and 2) you personally cannot judge the actual physics involved much better than I can even though you know much more about both math and physics because you have a rock hard religious attitude about Einstein to the point of not even acknowledging the validity of the principle of falsification of his theories which makes them all valid qua theories, for you simply keep repeating all of the collaboration that's been done. Admit that and we've no argument at all. Most famous of the collaborations, btw, was a scientist going to an island just off the west coast of Africa--I think it was just before WWI--where his astronomical observations confirmed relativity. Jack Wheeler wrote about this on his Internet site, "To the Point News." Wheeler, while not a physicist--you too, don't claim to be a physicist--agrees with Einstein except in one thing. He thinks his theories should not have been called "Relativity," but "The Cosmological Constant," which is the speed of light. Or, the term used superficially gave the wrong idea about what was really being addressed, hobbling the Einstein horse out of the box and since. This I don't agree with, but it gives a different perspective on Einsteinian physics which is supportive, I think, of him and which is all Jack wanted to do.

Your refusal to say that Einstein's theories are falsifiable--never mind your reason but I'd like to know it--which is the primary confirmation of them as valid theories, makes you as irritating to talk to as Greg with his religious epistemology and just as irrational. You just keep repeating yourself about confirmation. A scientific theory is a stool with three legs. One leg is the theory per se. One leg is confirmation. The third leg is the principle of falsification. Ultimately the theory works (exists qua theory) and is valid only as long as all legs are present. There may be one exception, but not necessarily--and I think here Petr may have fallen flat on his face--maybe yes, maybe no--a replacement theory not yet rendered, which does not contradict Einstein but adds to the work that Einstein did just as he added to what Newton did and which he acknowledged was exactly what he did! Einsteinian physics does not contradict Newtonian physics. All Petr said was Newtonian physics extended was all that was needed, not Einsteinian, and that therefore it was--Petr implied this if he didn't state it outright--only a matter of time before Einstein was disproved by experiment--the theories, not the confirming observations and experiments.

--Brant

and the substance of space-time?--you've yet to describe it so it can be found--theorectically found at least--you just keep saying it's there without actually telling us what the "it" is or might be, not even "might be" as if one could find an inch without a ruler or other measuring device

All of Einstein's theories are falsifiable. Which is what makes them scientific theories and not philosophical bullsh*t.

[Brant Gaede]

Okay. Now, there is a God-awful lot of bs in philosophy, granted--so we now turn to scientific bullsh*t? I understand there's a lot of that. The idea of weight affecting a falling object making one thing fall faster than a lighter something, that was an idea disproved by experiment. Turns out this common sense idea was scientific bs. Then came Einstein with his theory proved--that is, confirmed--by experiment. Not scientific bs, so far, at least; it's still valid or such is commonly believed and that includes most physicists I'm sure. All I'm trying to do is integrate in this discussion philosophy and science for that's the inherent if unrecognizable something that is always ongoing with good science. You can throw in integrity too boot. Lack of integrity puts a stick into the scientific wheel. Ergo, Lysenkoism.

Philosophy and science need each other and science's need for the other is greater than the other's need for science, but that idea is in its ironic way a form of philosophical bs for the real point of reference is what is on--ends up on--the bottom line. A philosophy that wants--people do the actual wanting, I know--or does not object to a world without science is philosophical bs, especially today. Religion as philosophy generally falls into this category and some fall harder than others and one hardest of all by far. One made a big U-turn from an even worse place hundreds of years ago--Catholicism--then stopped, regressed (The Inquisition), then de-regressed. It made that turn thanks to some in-house philosophers such as Aquinas. While Aristotle was a scientist for his day, it was Archimedes who was the modern scientific man way back then. He did the math too. He even invented a form of calculus. Archimedes could walk into Caltech today and talk science and math with anyone--they'd drag him inside if he didn't come peacefully--while Aristotle--well, he could go to--uh, Harvard?

--Brant

Caltech want ad: "Greek translator wanted immediately, Ph.D. in mathematics preferred"

[BaalChatzaf]

Okay. Now, there is a God-awful lot of bs in philosophy, granted--so we now turn to scientific bullsh*t?

Scientific Bullshit made your posting possible.

[Brant Gaede]

Okay. Now, there is a God-awful lot of bs in philosophy, granted--so we now turn to scientific bullsh*t?

Scientific Bullshit made your posting possible.

Whatever you want to call it.

--Brant

for I agree