Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!husc6!rutgers!ames!elroy!cit-vax!tybalt.caltech.edu!myers From: myers@tybalt.caltech.edu (Bob Myers) Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech Subject: Re: Submission for sci.philosophy.tech (Re: Scientific Epistemology) Message-ID: <3533@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> Date: Sat, 8-Aug-87 20:39:36 EDT Article-I.D.: cit-vax.3533 Posted: Sat Aug 8 20:39:36 1987 Date-Received: Sun, 9-Aug-87 12:49:22 EDT References: <120@snark.UUCP> Sender: news@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu Reply-To: myers@tybalt.caltech.edu.UUCP (Bob Myers) Organization: California Institute of Technology Lines: 29 In article <120@snark.UUCP> eric@snark.UUCP (Eric S. Raymond) writes: > It's the confirmation-by-experience that *simple* F=ma can be used >to predict the *complex* behavior of the falling rock that's the real >"knowledge" here; F=ma is just marks on paper. Mathematics by itself is a >zero-content system, both literally and figuratively meaningless (but fun!). >The mapping is 'beautiful' only because it's now part of your intuition; was >it 'beautiful' to you while you were struggling to understand dx/dt? Yes, actually. You don't need to completely understand the mathematics to appreciate the beauty. All you need is an intuitive understanding. I don't understand General Relativity, but I can appreciate the beauty of a geometrical interpretation of gravity. >No? I didn't think so...and it remains un-`beautiful' to people who don't >grok elementary physics at least in Newtonian approximation. Only if they don't understand what the symbols stand for on any level. It's not terribly hard to explain F=ma on an intuitive level. Sure, as long as it's just marks on a piece of paper, it's not beautiful. (Calligraphy aside! :-) ) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Well if that's the best there is Then I won't buy it Well if that's the only game Then I won't play Bob Myers myers@tybalt.caltech.edu {rutgers,amdahl}!cit-vax!tybalt.caltech.edu!myers