Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 16:15:16 -0400

Author: "John L. Hubisz"

Subject: Re: Theoretical versus Experimental Physics

Post:

--=====================_-1880862537==.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

Language is tricky.

Creation is not the same as creationism nor is evolution the same as
evolutionism.

To prove something means to put it to the test as in "The proof of
the pudding is in the tasting."
It also means "to establish as true."

"Awful" used to mean "to fill with awe," i.e. just the opposite.

Watch your language!

John

At 02:26 PM 9/28/2005, Adam Beehler wrote:
>On Sep 27, 2005, at 2:35 PM, Jerry DiMarco wrote:
>>...but I have a question about the statement I've excerpted below.
>
>>>... I guess my point here is that truth is truth whether we choose
>>>to believe it or not, or whether we have proof yet or not. ...
>
>>It seems to me that the first part of this statement could mean
>>that if one does not accept a statement as true because they
>>believe it has not been satisfactorily proven, the statement still is true.
>
>No, it just means that that person does not know yet. Lack of
>knowledge (or experimental proof) does not change truth. If someone
>has a 'claim of truth' but does not know yet, then more knowledge
>and/or tests must be done to verify its truthfulness. If something
>is truly true, then we will eventually figure it out; however, if
>something is ultimately not true, then we will always be thwarted.
>
>>The second part of this statement seems to remove the accepted
>>standard that we have for truth. Isn't proof one of the main
>>requirements of truth?
>
>That's a great question. What IS the "accepted standard of
>truth?" In my mind, proof is not it. IF something is truly true
>(whether I know it yet or not), then it is truth. Now I,
>personally, must have some kind of proof (and one way is through
>experiments) in order for ME to know that it is truth or not.
>
>Let me use an example to try and help explain what I meant by all of
>this. Here on earth, we know how gravity works (for the most part).
>So if one does not believe gravity and jumps off of a cliff, he will
>still fall.
>
>Here is another example. People use to believe that the world was
>round, or that the sun revolved around the earth. They even had
>explanations for these conclusions. Fortunately, that does not
>change the truth that the earth is spherical. They just did not know it yet.
>
>So, granted, we might not know that something is truth until later,
>but that does not change the fact that it is truth. We might not
>know that it is truth until we do experiments or learn enough.
>
>Adam
>
>

John L. Hubisz, Physics Department, Box 8202, North Carolina State
University, Raleigh NC 27695-8202; hubisz@unity.ncsu.edu,
(919)362-5782, (919)515-7331 FAX

http://www.science-house.org/middleschool/
http://www.physics.ncsu.edu/ncsaapt/ or
http://www2.ncsu.edu/ncsu/pams/physics/ncsaapt
http://www.physics.ncsu.edu/faculty/hubisz.html


HOME: 1604 South Salem Street, Apex NC 27502-7251,
hubisz@mindspring.com, (919)362-5782 (Voice & FAX)
--=====================_-1880862537==.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"



Language is tricky.


Creation is not the same as creationism nor is evolution the same as
evolutionism.


To prove something means to put it to the test as in "The proof of
the pudding is in the tasting."

It also means "to establish as true."


"Awful" used to mean "to fill with awe," i.e. just
the opposite.


Watch your language!


John


At 02:26 PM 9/28/2005, Adam Beehler wrote:

On Sep 27, 2005, at 2:35 PM,
Jerry DiMarco wrote:

...but I have a question about
the statement I've excerpted below.



... I guess my point here is
that truth is truth whether we choose to believe it or not, or whether we
have proof yet or not. ...


It seems to me that the first
part of this statement could mean that if one does not accept a statement
as true because they believe it has not been satisfactorily proven, the
statement still is true.


No, it just means that that person does not know yet.  Lack of
knowledge (or experimental proof) does not change truth.  If someone
has a 'claim of truth' but does not know yet, then more knowledge and/or
tests must be done to verify its truthfulness.  If something is
truly true, then we will eventually figure it out; however, if something
is ultimately not true, then we will always be thwarted.


The second part of this
statement seems to remove the accepted standard that we have for
truth.  Isn't proof one of the main requirements of
truth?


That's a great question.  What IS the "accepted standard of
truth?"  In my mind, proof is not it.  IF something is
truly true (whether I know it yet or not), then it is truth.  Now I,
personally, must have some kind of proof (and one way is through
experiments) in order for ME to know that it is truth or not.


Let me use an example to try and help explain what I meant by all of
this.  Here on earth, we know how gravity works (for the most
part). 

So if one does not believe gravity and jumps off of a cliff, he will
still fall.


Here is another example.  People use to believe that the world was
round, or that the sun revolved around the earth.  They even had
explanations for these conclusions.  Fortunately, that does not
change the truth that the earth is spherical.  They just did not
know it yet.


So, granted, we might not know that something is truth until later, but
that does not change the fact that it is truth.  We might not know
that it is truth until we do experiments or learn enough.


Adam






John L. Hubisz, Physics Department, Box 8202, North Carolina State
University, Raleigh  NC  27695-8202; hubisz@unity.ncsu.edu,
(919)362-5782, (919)515-7331 FAX



http://www.science-house.org/middleschool/


http://www.physics.ncsu.edu/ncsaapt/
or

http://www2.ncsu.edu/ncsu/pams/physics/ncsaapt



http://www.physics.ncsu.edu/faculty/hubisz.html



HOME: 1604 South Salem Street, Apex  NC  27502-7251,
hubisz@mindspring.com, (919)362-5782 (Voice & FAX)


--=====================_-1880862537==.ALT--

From Paul.Nord@valpo.edu Wed Sep 28 18:47:33 2005

Back