 |
 |
Thanks Alan, I also broadly agree with you when you said (in relation to Ted's point) "that it is not rationalistic logic per se, but acceptance and exclusive use of this logic based on relying on the 'tip of the iceberg' of visual perception, and not realizing what lies beneath this outward appearance, that can get us into Titanic trouble!" but, the situation is much, much worse than this. Contrary to popular myths and rumors, experimental physics is not based on direct experience at all. Without highly specialised training in operational methods, procedures, and theoretical interpretations, the direct experience of an experiment would consist of meaningless flashing lights, digital readouts, reams of incomprehensible computer printouts, etc. In the real situation of the experimental laboratory, the experimenter is not concerned with visual perception per se but is concerned by what is disclosed by means of technical interpretations of visual perception. The experimenter is trying to develop a causal account to explain visual perception, made by using the dominant explanatory trope of the "natural mechanism", which allows the experimenter to explain the responses of the apparatus to human interventions, in terms of the same explanatory models and representations that were used to design the experiment in the first instance. In most cases of modern experimental physics the experimenter has little or no direct experience of the phenonemon under investigation. It is analogous to a deaf person trying to understand music by watching a visual representation of the wave form of guitar chords as the instrument is strummed and explaining it in terms of mechanistic models developed from an understanding of how to make guitars. To extend your iceberg metaphor, it is the case that the physicists' experience of the iceberg is limited to the radar and thermographic readouts of the ship instrumentation. The modern physicist is even further removed from the iceberg. S/he doesn't actually rely on the 'tip of the iceberg' of visual perception, but relies on a technologically produced representation of the tip of the iceberg and reduces our understanding of the iceberg to an explanation of its interaction with the radar and thermometry instruments. But, the physicist is concerned with what lies beneath the surface! However, any understanding of that which is hidden from view is made entirely in terms of how the physicist understands the techniques and instruments used to measure and explore icebergs. Thus, the iceberg is transformed into a set of machine performances and only those performances can be part of mainstream physics. cheers, Karl. --------------------------------- Inbox full of spam? Get leading spam protection and 1GB storage with All New Yahoo! Mail.