eva matthews

Everyone wishes for contextuality, but still reads dogma such as that of Harry. This, I suppose, gives many the feeling that somewhere there's a conceptual anchor. But your citation of issues indicates the contrary... EM

Hudgens is citing an Israeli lobby group famous for accusing all anti-israeli statements to be 'anti-semitic' Moreover, there is nothing in the text that even remotely suggests that Walker made a direct anti-semitic statement independent of her views that Israel is an illegal settler state. This, then, is bozo journalism at its worst: You either agree (idiotically!) that those who oppose Israel are closet Jew-haters, or (sanely) that Israel's policies, like those of every other country, is open for scrutiny. You simply don't succumb to verbal blackmail that says. "if you criticize israel, I'll call you an anti-semite". Eva

I mentioned Dennet in the sense that I, too disagree with his 'mind as a computer analogy. Yet, at the same time, he's part of a sub-discipline of philosophy called 'Consciousness', or 'philo of mind'. This endeavor, as a whole, stands in stark contrast to any suggestion that consciousness is a 'given'. Eva

Copenhagen simply says that there are two sets of equations--wave and particle--that are incommensrate with respect to the math. Your notion of 'correct' math but 'incorrect' theory is called 'Goldilocks' within the discipline, Clever humans dream up what would justify 'just right' a reason why physical events happen the way they do. then all of the little physics bears should go around scrambling for an answer that's not to hot, not too cold. Yeah, the 'ol standard model just took a real beating with this Higgs thing--just as Penrose predicted. As for 'dispair' and 'true belief': Yep, that' s my dad! One day, it's the know-it all , next, I know nothing. A real Copenhagen of emotive bivalence. Thankfully mom's a psychologist! As for Quantum not being 'real' physics, I agree. The math is simpler than that Relativity stuff. but things we don't really understand the why's of should be really, really complicated in their equations, too, yes? EM

No, it was not his whole point -- link. When a new coefficient is discovered, the old and new standards of measurement are considered to be 'incommensurate'. For example, Pauli's Principle and QED are 'incommensurate'.. It's therefore said that Lamb's discovery engendered in a new paradigm. EM

Michael, Rest assured that i have no ulterior motive. Beyond that, permit me several points as to my perspective: * I have tried to be careful in distinguishing second-hand views of posters from those of Harry himself--hopefully, employing only the latter. If I have erred and cited a poster instead, I'll rely on your sharp eye to inform me. My apology will be immediate. * Posters of Harry-citations are responsible for the context from which they pull his sentences. Not I. If there's a contextual revision, i'll be happy to respond accordingly. * Granted, many endeavors use the same word to represent differentythings within various field. My fave in this regard is a 'plasma'. it's either tv-talk, blood liquid, or superheated electrons. So yes, Harry uses words in a different way than in experimental psy and neurosci. This would be fair enough, except that his notions about what knowledge is depends upon experimental psy and neurosci to begin with! Beyond that, his theory is just plain wrong in any language, dialect, or daffy-nition....at least, again, as presented. We do not get a truthfull picture of reality by any possible way that sensation and perception might be defined. Again, we use slow-thought, reason, as a backup, or Kahnemen;s type #2, as it were. Within this context, sensation/perception is a heuristic, type #1. The big picture is that Rand does, indeed, talke the old Aristotelian model that takes the sensation >> real thing nexus for granted. harry's stuff seems just to trope along, which makes it 'Randian Orthodoxy, but untrue. For the sake of argument, as Long and Uncle Tibor have written, Randian philosophy of language does resemble the undeveloped Kripke model of name/thing adherence. The caveat here, of course, is that Kripke does not refer back to Aristotle as a canon. Rather, he sees the definitional adherence between word and object to be a result of reason--ostensibly beyond that of said sensation/perception matrix. Eva

Yes, but only if you're concerning yourself with 'theoretical load'. My ponit is that,in our daily lives, we don't. EM Consider the difference between a carpenter and a physicist. Ba'al Chatzaf Actually, Kuhn's whole point re 'paradigms' is that by far the greater portion of any science is procedural within a given standard of measure. EM

The marks on the measuring stick on convention. But we expect the property of length (however denominated) to be unchanged when we carry the measuring stick from where it is to where it is applied to thing measured. We also expect the -length- of the measuring stick not to be noticeably changed when we apply the stick to the object to be measured. NOTE: That is why we do not use metal rulers to apply to very hot objects. In this case we have to resort to other means of length measurement. So the units of length are conventional but the property of length (a property of both the measuring stick and the thing measured by the measuring stick) is hedged and ringed by all sorts of theoretical assumptions. That is the load the theory imposes on the property. Ba'al Chatzaf Yes, but only if you're concerning yourself with 'theoretical load'. My ponit is that,in our daily lives, we don't. EM

Randians, like everyone else,.are obliged to get the basic science right, In this respect, Harry is a miserable failure whatever his adherence is to whatever particular philosophical doctrine. EM

Do you have a source? Depending on how "sensory data" is defined, that definition might apply to a thermostat, to a motion detector, to a camera, etc., etc. - in general, to any mechanical object which registers some kind of energy input. Is the definition intended thus to apply? I haven't looked at the book yet - just received it a few days ago - but I doubt that Binswanger is saying that we're aware that we're taking sensory data in. I think you misunderstood the definitions Peter quoted. Sounds to me, going only on the basis of the quotes, like Binswanger's made a needed revision of Rand's views, and that his definitions are good ones, except for his keeping the idea of perceptual inerrancy. Ellen Whether or not I misunderstood anything of either another poster or Harry can easily be referenced by pasting over a citation. Mine are on #45, and are those of the book's auther, not the poster. A working definition of 'perception' can be fiound in any psy textbook from 101. Saying sensory 'data' on my part was somewhat of a misnomer as, again, there's no particular point within neuronal activity at which reception becomes data-fied. For example, the eyes don't really 'see' what's assured to exist. So actually, your thermostat analogy is somewhat accurate in the sense that the instrument of measurement is unaware of its activity. The serious error that Harry makes is his failure to understand reason as a correction-device for the sensation/perception complex. He's so obsessed with the notion that what we take in via our senses is 'real' because that the basis of Rand's so-called 'epistemology'. Well, it's not. 'Real-ness' has to do with how reason intervenes to adjust empirical error. It might also be noted that, within research psy, the only epistemic grounds for using 'perception' is to distinguish the various responses from different people-- the given sensation being the same for everyone. the best example of thiis is the variance of 'perception' of an optical illusion which, in many cases does not cross cultural boundaries. So here, again, Harry has simply gotten it backwards. Perception measures variance of individuals' responses to the same stimulus. EM

The problem with Harry is that he does indeed delve into usage of terms taken from experimental psy and neurosci--and fucks them up, terribly. Per post on another thread ---as claimed by a reader of Harry (as I have not!)-- there's a use of 'perception and sensation'. Now these are brain science terms if ever there were! So for my explanation of said badness, please refer to said other thread. Suffice to say that at least Harry understands that modern philosophy must come to terms with modern science as having created baseline truths, or not. A good example would be 'Edelman's Brain', an evolutionry model that sees the brain looking like and evolving like a rain forest (Searle).. This would refute consciousness studies that takes the brain tio act like a computer--or resembling an elecrtrical grid.(Dennett). To this end, Harry's perception/sensation model dates back 100+ years, clearly refuted in the 1950's with the advent of wave measurement. And again, declaring something to be an 'axiom' doesn't make it an un-challenged 'given' by said misuse of the Greek. 'Consciousness' and existence' are not 'given' in terms of how philosophy is done that's considered 'not-randian'. In other words, harry is just putting lipstick on a pig. Lastly. arithametic is not number theory, or ever was. Rather, it's the four basic computational functions prerequiste to learning math. EM

Re #40: >>“Perception” is the ongoing awareness of entities in their relative positions, gained from actively acquired sensory inputs.... In experimental psy, 'perception' is the immediate internal state of having received sensory data .'Awareness' and 'actively aquired' are totally besides the point, if not totally incorrect in their implications. In other words, we're not aware that we are taking sensory data in. 'Actively' means 'intent' ,as the distinction between hearinganfd listening, Definately not, in most cases. >>>[Harry] works his way using the findings of modern Science. If so, you're free to explain. >>>Perception is the direct awareness of reality, in the form of spatially arrayed entities, that results from the automatic neural processing of actively acquired sensory inputs.<<<< This is totally false. The point of 'thinking' is to correct perception. >>>perception is “metaphysically given,” and hence inerrant.>>>> As for metaphysics, the citation throws the conversation back to Descartes. We reason because we err in our perceptions. Mod exp psy shows only how correct Descartes was. >>>Gregory Salmieri’s distinction between perception and “post-perceptual processing.” Salmieri 2006. end quote<<< I think it's nice to see Randites freely cite each other. It demonstrates the superiority of collectivism over individualism. This includes Salmieri, btw.. Moreover.... Salmieri is neither an experimental psychologist nor a neuroscientist. Rather he obtained his PhD in philosophy in 2008, two years after your 2006 footnoted citation. So did 'Harry' pull his mis-use of 'post-perceptual processing' from OL, RoR, or Meetup Ayn Rand Fan Club, Atlanta? 'PPP' deals with our brain's re-alignment of images from side-angle to straight. For example, when we're given the last seat in a cinema, front row, extreme left or right---take it or leave it. It's not an 'intentional' process of active re-configuration. Rather, its a reaction that's wired into our brains. Much interesting work has been done on the intensity, origin, and pattern of this brain-wave. But the question remains, 'How does the cerebtral cortex 'know' that the 'perception' is skewed by 45 degrees? Do we 'tell' it by the emotive surge from thamic to cortex by cursing under our breath? Again, what you've presented of Randian Philosophy is an exposition of the ways and means that Randites use to evade real philosophical issues. Again the best example of this are a rejection of consciousness and existence as fields of inquiry. Rather, they're poo-pooed away as 'axioms'--again, the bizarre malaprop for 'given' . Now, to make matters worse, you're citing 'Harry' who, under the prexext of 'philosophy' takes the same liberties with experimental psy and neuro sci. So what's next--- the 'physics' of -orbiting electrons around a nucleon? Perhaps the evolutionary biology of enlarged brains due to their stressful use? Back to philosophy: At best, you and 'Harry' have taken common-sense observation and gussied it up with incorrect philosophical terms in order to sound profound.. That's putting lipstick on a pig. EM

Eva, Man, this is hard to try to get across to academic-like people. Especially when they start looking down their noses... Ah... the vanity of the academic... I have been an addict of several enslaving substances (alcohol, crack, etc.), but I never tasted that particular fruit. I wonder if the craving gets just as bad when you go without a fix for too long... The question is not whether fields cause particles. That's a reductionist approach where everything ultimately has to go to one cause only. Or, since I've seen reductionists deny that--not because it is incorrect, but because science has not gotten that far yet--it's the general direction . The question is do fields cause particles to act and react in certain ways that are otherwise not innate to them? Or better, do fields use what is innate in them in a structured manner that is not innate in them? I use the metaphor of top down and bottom up thinking. The reductionist believes that the subparticle contains all the forms and fields in the universe--that they emerge from subparticles. The top down only person (usually a religious person, but not always) believes form and field merge and become so all-encompassing that they call it God (or "source") and claim it is the cause of everything, including the subparticles. In my way of thinking there are both. And I don't know where either came from. I don't understand having a top without a bottom. One does not necessarily cause the other (maybe some do, but not all). But, from what I have been able to see so far, one does not exist without the other. I've heard and read a lot of blah blah blah about the reductionist approach being the only truly scientific one, but when I get down to the first principles, that's an opinion. Nothing more. So I look at it like a child would. I see a field. I see stuff in it. Hey! Both field and stuff exist and they're different! Opinion? Yup. But taking one opinion over the other, I'll go with the one that makes sense to me. Michael Michael, In some versions of string theory, field is caused by the vibration of said strings. Having said this, I'm being neither 'academic nor snooty. This is simlpy all I know in this particular. <<The question is do fields cause particles to act and react in certain ways that are otherwise not innate to them>> Yes, although 'innate' seem to be an awkward term. Lamb shifts describe the field influence of the nucleon on the electron. To this extent (1952) Feynman called it the 'holy grail', as it opened the door to Quantum Electrodynamics, or precisely the study of fiels interacction on subatomics. Moreover... The Dirac equation of around 1930 describes how the Lorentz (Relativity) also effects the electron. . >>>The reductionist believes that the subparticle contains all the forms and fields in the universe--that they emerge from subparticles. The top down only person (usually a religious person, but not always) believes form and field merge and become so all-encompassing that they call it God (or "source") and claim it is the cause of everything, including the subparticles.>>> I'm not comfortable with either. They're clearly a number of subs (16 plus Higgs,at last count!) that may or may not 'fit' into a singular elaborate geometric equation. For some fun reading, see Garrett Lisi and the Lie 8. Eva

Michael, Actually, vipers are rather peaceful, only striking back when stepped upon. So yes, that's me. Otherwise, several ex-RoR writers have, in private correspondence, referred to an inner group of name-callers as 'fissiles', thereby resigning. I tend to ignore them, and respond only to several intelligent people who should be posting with you. EM

We like to assign reason to a spiritual dimension and, by having done so, assign it a secondary status to other bodily functions. This, of course, is dualism by another name. Both breathing and thinking, however, are controlled by the brain. To this extent, you can say yes, we might lose our cognative abilities through an accident and still maintain vital functions. But what of it?

Challenging whose premises? Your own? And who is this "we" you're talking about? Again, you use "we" (meaning yourself) regarding not having the time to examine the facts you use in everyday life. So, what is all this discussion about? You lecture, you blind us with your brilliance on discussion after discussion but don't really address the points other people are trying to make. What of my point about the on-off switch? And those who would force others into conformity simply turn the switch to "off" for a great part of humanity? About solipsism; no, I am nearly the polar opposite. You are like the chess prodigy, playing 20 people at once, jumping from game to game hardly looking. Except it's a lot easier to tell who's winning a chess game. You depend on "not checking the facts" [no time, remember?] to maintain the illusion of winning all the games. Makes you seem kind of young, don't you think? Not an insult, I admire your energy and your youth, having lost mine. Mikee, If I appear to be indirect, rest assured it's out of politeness. Re your post #10, kindly re-read my response in post # 13 and you'll discover that my disagreement is clear. Otherwise, no, i'm not flattered that I blind you with my brilliance, and yes, if you say that all the facts in all the 1000+ books as cited are not really 'facts' until you've examined them, you're indeed a solopsist by garden-varietty definition. Eva I'm certainly not blinded by your brilliance but you are blinded by your lack of it. You continue to evade. I do not admire your cowardice. You are boring. ...But in your previous post you said that you were, indeed, 'blinded'! Now i'm confused! Are you really that bi-polar? As for answering your questions, newsflash: You're not some tribal bongo-bongo king for whom an answer is necessitated on your terms--or else I get tossed into the communal pot. Ditto this thing about 'cowardice': i could care less what you think of me. we're not Zulus here attacking the redcoats with spears. So If i'm boring, then you're completely stupid for having said that facts don't exist until you, bongo-bongo tribal king, have examned them. In other words, you've given solipsism a bad name. EM What about my description of you as a "public school rote learner" leads you to believe I think you're "brilliant"? I said I admired you energy and youth, both of which will be cured in time. I shudder to think what you will become given the venom evident now. You don't kill small animals for pleasure I hope. You show other warning signs. Shudder away.Because I return insult for insult, i have no need to involve small animals. That should be warning sign enough.

Michael, Thanks for the kind post. Actually, I'm a very practical libertarian who believes that the way to have a much smaller government is to deny it revenue. That means drastically lowering taxes. Your story does drive home a cogernt point, of which i'm only partially aware. Sucking up works to the extent that the one sucked up to has no other basis for making a decision other than the receipt of flattery. Classically speaking, we do attribute this to government, But last year's search for privite donors (my decision!) turned up some interesting types who did, indeed, demand not 'just' flattery! Moreover, many of the petitioned insisted that I offer a detailed practical application for 'their' company. in other words, I had a terribly hard time explaning that my work was only 'theoretical'! Momma, who accompanied me on most of these excursions--and no sucker-upper herself!-- did suggest that i quit pulling a "Cordelia", (Lear's 'good' daughter), and be nicer, less detached, and far less cut n dried. Well, anyway, it's all there. I'm good for the next ten years, or so. I've been warned, however, that the donors will continue to nag, and inform me that more donations will be based upon their liking of my 'progress'. You and everyone else says that government granting is far worse, and i believe you. Yetch! Eva

Yes, it's equally stupid to say both, 'No facts exist until I've read and analyzed them myself, and " Challenging whose premises? Your own? And who is this "we" you're talking about? Again, you use "we" (meaning yourself) regarding not having the time to examine the facts you use in everyday life. So, what is all this discussion about? You lecture, you blind us with your brilliance on discussion after discussion but don't really address the points other people are trying to make. What of my point about the on-off switch? And those who would force others into conformity simply turn the switch to "off" for a great part of humanity? About solipsism; no, I am nearly the polar opposite. You are like the chess prodigy, playing 20 people at once, jumping from game to game hardly looking. Except it's a lot easier to tell who's winning a chess game. You depend on "not checking the facts" [no time, remember?] to maintain the illusion of winning all the games. Makes you seem kind of young, don't you think? Not an insult, I admire your energy and your youth, having lost mine. Mikee, If I appear to be indirect, rest assured it's out of politeness. Re your post #10, kindly re-read my response in post # 13 and you'll discover that my disagreement is clear. Otherwise, no, i'm not flattered that I blind you with my brilliance, and yes, if you say that all the facts in all the 1000+ books as cited are not really 'facts' until you've examined them, you're indeed a solopsist by garden-varietty definition. Eva I'm certainly not blinded by your brilliance but you are blinded by your lack of it. You continue to evade. I do not admire your cowardice. You are boring. ...But in your previous post you said that you were, indeed, 'blinded'! Now i'm confused! Are you really that bi-polar? As for answering your questions, newsflash: You're not some tribal bongo-bongo king for whom an answer is necessitated on your terms--or else I get tossed into the communal pot. Ditto this thing about 'cowardice': i could care less what you think of me. we're not Zulus here attacking the redcoats with spears. So If i'm boring, then you're completely stupid for having said that facts don't exist until you, bongo-bongo tribal king, have examned them. In other words, you've given solipsism a bad name. EM

Eva, You have my blessing if that's what your little heart desires. I don't think they formally teach sucking skills at college, but my suggestion is to bone up on those. The competition among suck-ups is terrible in the government if you want to go far. If all you want is a nice comfy job somewhere, living off the fat of the land and letting others pay for it, so to speak, moderate sucking skills are all you need. Once you're dug in, just keep a low profile and kiss the asses of those that need periodic kissing, which is not all that often. Nice future to spend your life if you can get it. Michael Actually, my project hardly involves sucking up top anyone. It's a multi-dimensional analysis of learning and emotions.. My learning model more or less tweaks Kahneman in two dimensions of performance. The emotive model has n dimensions (Hilbert) because present-day neurosci doesn't support a definitive a,b,c...state response strictly in terms of the measure of brain waves from the thalmic system. Phenomenal states of the sort employed by, say, Branden, are not used. The grant package --most from private sources!-- awaits upon my graduation with a BS this June. Parts will go to MS and PhD per contract with said donors. As for this being 'nice & comfy' would depend entirely on one's notion of what really happens on campus. Mine is that grad students compete far more viciously with each other than athletes. At least they do to get momndad's attention, as both are tenured profs here, in psych and math/physics That's why i prefer to do my own work, then mail in the results for the degree. Eva

Kant came up with the nebula hypothesis, very similar to that of LaPlace. Big Bangs were nowhere in sight in the 18th and early 19th centuries. Ba'al Chatzaf Okay...Kant argued againt Aristotles's Infinite past with a finite one that demanded a point of origin...yes, not necessarity a Big Bang. Eva

Yeah, he's a real gov-grant parasite. Hopefully, I can follow in his footsteps.

re #21 Eva asks Peter: Are you vaguely literate in any philosophy other than that of Rand? Did you answer 'no' because of a low IQ? >>>saying *consciousness* is ‘axiomatic’ means we can study it but we need our consciousness to study our consciousness<<< How profound it is to say that we need to be awake in order to say to ourself, "Hey, I'm thinking!" So yes, as the term 'axiom' is incorrectly applied in the Middlebrow dialect of Standard English, It's 'axiomatic' that you cannot sleep and think at the same time.. >>>> She accepted her own senses and reasoning as axiomatic.>>>> Philosophical illiteracy would account for the fact that Descartes said more or less the same thing 330 + years ago--witjhout 'axiom' of course. So tell me something interesting, Mister Talking Horse, if you please. >>>The three dimensional spatial array given in perception is what fundamentally distinguishes perception from sensation>>> What you're saying here is that sensation is intake, then perception is process with an innate faculty to impose dimensionality. In other words, following Kant, space is mind-dependent, per Crit#1. But I thought that he was a 'witch doctor'? In any case, the notion that sensation and perception are two discreet processes wnet out of style in the 50's. It's now taught as 'history of psychology', along with Freud, electroshock, and lobotomy. Real experimental data shows no such sensation/perception break in terms of neuronal activity--rather, only an ad hoc front/back heuristic that's handy for those who are unable to understand neurology. Such as Binswanger and yourself. >>>>Consciousness, unlike existence, is a property: Consciousness is an attribute of certain living entities, but it is not an attribute of a given state of awareness, it “is” that state.>>>> >>>>I have always been intrigued by the above self evidentiary thought>>>> So consciousness is the state of awareness, or of 'being aware'. So the property of awareness is called...consciousness...or did I get it backwards? So at least i can say that when I'm aware, I can sound really 'philosophical' and say, "Gee, I'm...Conscious!!" Re your intrigue: Is your drug habit getting out of hand? >>> Existence and consciousness are irreducible primaries>>>>. As I mentioned in another post, the point of most of philosophy not of the Randian sort is to examine and question consciousness and existence. So for those who want to come over to the darlk side, you're more than welcome. Otherwise, remain retarded. >>>Studying the bio-mechanical with consciousness<<< A bio-mechanical definition of 'consciousness' means, again, being awake. >>>> Positive of the self evident, consciousness exists within existence>>> Yes, you have to be 'alive' to be awake'. So Peikoff got his PhD under Sidney Hook for saying that? >>>>Existence is billiard ball causality>>>> If that were true, with or without 'some' randomness, then your model would be ultra-determinist without a glimmer of free will. <<<<addition of higher human consciousness, existence and causality has been changed as never before>>> I agree. Red Bull makes you feel more 'highly' awake than ever!!! Eva

Challenging whose premises? Your own? And who is this "we" you're talking about? Again, you use "we" (meaning yourself) regarding not having the time to examine the facts you use in everyday life. So, what is all this discussion about? You lecture, you blind us with your brilliance on discussion after discussion but don't really address the points other people are trying to make. What of my point about the on-off switch? And those who would force others into conformity simply turn the switch to "off" for a great part of humanity? About solipsism; no, I am nearly the polar opposite. You are like the chess prodigy, playing 20 people at once, jumping from game to game hardly looking. Except it's a lot easier to tell who's winning a chess game. You depend on "not checking the facts" [no time, remember?] to maintain the illusion of winning all the games. Makes you seem kind of young, don't you think? Not an insult, I admire your energy and your youth, having lost mine. Mikee, If I appear to be indirect, rest assured it's out of politeness. Re your post #10, kindly re-read my response in post # 13 and you'll discover that my disagreement is clear. Otherwise, no, i'm not flattered that I blind you with my brilliance, and yes, if you say that all the facts in all the 1000+ books as cited are not really 'facts' until you've examined them, you're indeed a solopsist by garden-varietty definition. Eva

Michael, Yes, I agree that philosophical consciousness is up for debate--as viciously as it can get. See Searle v Dennet for giggles. The main issue is to what measure a biomedical reality can serve as a point of departure. ** All-- consciousness isn't a philosophical word. It was stolen out of the physiology playbook in the middle of a dark & stormy night. *** None-- Consciousness is super organic. it's what we philosophical peeple use to describe things that you science peeple cannot. ****Most, in between-- it's difficult, but real. Sort of like Romeo meeting the Scarlett Letter. ***** It's axiomatic--- Axion Esti, perhaps? The hymn to the Theotokon (Virgin Mary) or the poem by Elytis? I'm confused. I believe that Ken Wilbur was the talking horse from Mr Ed. Grandad told me that he was led away to the glue factory when the series had finally run its course. The fact was that he never had anything interesting to say. Eva

Well, let's back off a bit until someone discovers what gravity really is. Perhaps a 'gravaton'? The truth is that Newt disn't know what we still don't know. As it is, 'gravity' is what causes objects to fall to earth at a constant rate, and can also explain most of what we know about orbits and trajectories. In General Relativity, its mathematical form is a field that can bend the spacetime matrix. Yet because its field equations are so dissimilar to those of other particles it takes a rather complex differential geometry to make it fit within even a ten-dimensional string model. The truth is that Newt's stuff was open to serious debate during the entirety of the 18th century. Goethe thought it to be nonsense because, despite Newt's 'principled' protests tothe contrary, he was still only describing the effects. The real hero seems to have been Kant, who argued that science is about 'capacities', not the inclusive Four Causes of Aristotle. Prior to his philosophy, Kant, as the go-to astronomer of record (Big Bang!), taught Newt at Konigsberg. Now to emphasize the distinction between a 'capacity', which will only give a synthetic definition, and a 'formal cause',or anayltic, consider the other Newtoniian padoddle: F=MA. Nothing is known of 'force' other the written fact that it's 'MA'. As I mentioned, Planck's discovery of the quanta change all of that. But re gravity, we're still stuck on go. Or as by 11-year old niece says, 'gravy'...although she knows better. As I write, she just loves Peyton List more than science. Eva