I agree Socratus - when I last looked there were 15 known matter states of water (in my day I drew dancing men of hydrogen bonds) and over 500 matter states are proposed. Gellmann always said we were using accounting devices, not really discovering quarks and so on. Let's say we want to do a cold fusion experiment. I'd struggle to know more than trying to do something with palladium and hydrogen (I read Frank Close's book years ago). We could read up on the literature, observe experiments, get into the practical language of researchers in the area. We might then be able to converse sensibly about the concept/s and decide what might convince us the temperature rises in the experiments is fusion. Science is full of terms we can't fully explain as you say - there are underlying moments when we think we have enough for a 'working system' and allow for anomalies and approximation (Ludwig and Sneed have approximation as important in theory construction). The physicists (some) are back with thermodynamics in the search for something unifying and new forms of radiation and at least talking about dangers in assuming origin and maths extrapolation from that. Two up quarks and a down 'make' a proton but it will 'weigh' far more than its components (what is lending the weight?) and could we manipulate such - but I don't see the god question in any of this.
On 27 Jan, 16:18, socratus <socra...@bezeqint.net> wrote: > What are we talking about ? > == > a) We don't know what 'virtual particles' are, > b) we don’t know what electron is, > c) we don't know what water is, > d) we don't know what entropy is, > e) we don’t know what inertia is . . . . .etc > ========. > a) > The concept of virtual particles are . . . 'an approximation > scheme'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle > > b) > why electron has six (6) formulas and many theories ? > Nobody knows. > > c) > "Water is still not fully understood, although it is the basis > of our existence. I expect more surprises to be discovered > in the future." > / SLAC scientist Anders Nilsson. / > # > "In my view, the work on water is yet another example of the > actual complexity of matter, this time within a simple liquid. > Modern X-ray work appears to be triggering a new understanding > of liquids and we may have only seen the beginning of a paradigm > shift in our understanding." > / Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Laboratory director Jo Stöhr. / > > http://phys.org/news134058290.html-- June 30, 2008 > > d) > Entropy. > 1. > Henry Poincare named the conception of "entropy " > as a " surprising abstract ". > 2.Lev Landau (Dau) wrote: > > " A question about the physical basis of the > entropy monotonous increasing law remains open ". > 3. > Nobel laureate in chemistry 1909 Wilhelm Ostwald > wrote that the entropy is only a shadow of energy. > 4. > The mathematician John von Neumann said to > "the father of information theory" Claude Shannon: > " Name it "entropy" then in discussions > you will receive solid advantage, because > nobody knows, what "entropy" basically is ". > > e) > Inertia.Someone wrote: > > “An old professor of mine used to say > that anyone who can answer that question > what inertia is , would win a Nobel Prize. “ > ! ! > ==========.. > What are we talking about ? > We are talking about so called 'philosophy of science'. > ===. > Best wishes. > Israel Sadovnik. Socratus > =========================. . -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to epistemology@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to epistemology+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
