- #36
alxm
Science Advisor
- 1,848
- 9
jgm340: You're not talking about science there, IMO you're making a rather confused point about semiotics, not physics.
alxm said:jgm340: You're not talking about science there, IMO you're making a rather confused point about semiotics, not physics.
sophiecentaur said:A rose, by any other name would smell as sweet.
sophiecentaur said:Better to ask questions like "How does the model work?".
Theng kew.jgm340 said:Precisely! And that is what the OP's professor was trying to get across: we're working with a model. If you forget the fact that what you're working with is just a model, then you are more prone to miss opportunities to improve it.
Sure. But our "model" of the atom is no more or less of a model than the models we use to explain anything else, from the forces on a table, to the path of a projectile, to the behavior of an electronic circuit.jgm340 said:Precisely! And that is what the OP's professor was trying to get across: we're working with a model. If you forget the fact that what you're working with is just a model, then you are more prone to miss opportunities to improve it.
Gokul43201 said:I think jtbell answer the question correctly, except he was being polite.Sure. But our "model" of the atom is no more or less of a model than the models we use to explain anything else, from the forces on a table, to the path of a projectile, to the behavior of an electronic circuit.
This whole singling out of the atom as something that is just a model is just specious talk.
I agree with Gokul: Why would characterizing it differently imply that we'd be prone to opportunities to miss it? "Just a model" or "just a theory" has a condescending tone to it that is not necessary. It is silly to point out to a scientist that a theory is a theory or a model is a model. It's like saying your car is just a car. It has no point unless you don't understand what a car is, so when you say that a scientist might miss an opportunity to improve a theory/model, you are suggesting they don't know that a theory/model is by definition incomplete.jgm340 said:Precisely! And that is what the OP's professor was trying to get across: we're working with a model. If you forget the fact that what you're working with is just a model, then you are more prone to miss opportunities to improve it.
That's the only possible interpretation. There can be no other reason for saying something is "just a model":Dave said:We do not know that "just a model" was intended as a dismissal per se. That's your interpretation (of a secondhand paraphrasing).
Yes, and since that's redundant and pointlesss as saying a car is just a car, the condescention is evident in the statement.Giving both the OP and the prof he's paraphrasing the benefit of the doubt, I think he may simply be saying it's a model because we don't fully understand everything about it yet.
russ_watters said:I agree with Gokul: Why would characterizing it differently imply that we'd be prone to opportunities to miss it? "Just a model" or "just a theory" has a condescending tone to it that is not necessary. It is silly to point out to a scientist that a theory is a theory or a model is a model. It's like saying your car is just a car. It has no point unless you don't understand what a car is, so when you say that a scientist might miss an opportunity to improve a theory/model, you are suggesting they don't know that a theory/model is by definition incomplete.
And none of that has anything whatsoever to do with whether an atom is real. The two questions:
1. Is our understanding of what the atom is complete?
2. Is the atom real?
...have essentially nothing to do with each other.
And I know I'm just repeating myself now, but: That's the only possible interpretation. There can be no other reason for saying something is "just a model": Yes, and since that's redundant and pointlesss as saying a car is just a car, the condescention is evident in the statement.
I don't recognize that philosophy has anything relevant to say in response to those two qestions unless it wants to argue definitions (which is ultimately a useless thing to do). What you are saying might be true, but it is irrelevant to the issues being discussed here.Ivan Seeking said:But you are missing the essential point: Physics is limited. It doesn't tell us about the essence of that studied. That is why we have philosophy.
And that is why the most interesting sections in my ud QM book were the philosophical epilogues.
Science makes no such claim.You can't avoid philosophical questions while claiming to offer a complete understanding of existence.
And frankly, I think this is the very point the professor was trying to make. To remind the students that reality is not a bunch of billiard balls bouncing off each other in well-behaved fashion.russ_watters said:Ivan Seeking said:You can't avoid philosophical questions while claiming to offer a complete understanding of existence.
Science makes no such claim.
Ivan Seeking said:I agree that the title of the thread is not the same question as that implied in the post. "Are atoms real" is not the same as asking if we understand the model. But you are missing the essential point: Physics is limited. It doesn't tell us about the essence of that studied. That is why we have philosophy. And that is why the most interesting sections in my ud QM book were the philosophical epilogues.
You can't avoid philosophical questions while claiming to offer a complete understanding of existence.
I guess this would be just as true if you were actually talking about billiard balls. Heck, in some ways an atom behaves more like the idealized billiard ball than a real billiard ball does!DaveC426913 said:To remind the students that reality is not a bunch of billiard balls bouncing off each other in well-behaved fashion.