Attention: Starting December 14, 2019 Yahoo Groups will no longer host user created content on its sites. New content can no longer be uploaded after October 28, 2019. Learn More
- Sep 21, 2007In a message dated 15/09/07 1:09:26 PM Mountain Daylight Time, pluviosilla@... writes:
KEVIN (cited)
The physicists need their "diagrams" and photographic plates which demonstrate the effects of intrinsically imperceivable "quarks", given their immensely small sizes and almost-immeasureably short periods of existence.Ø
JOHN:
Yes, indeed. The history of the scientific opinion about the atom is one of imagery: from the Thompson “plumb-pudding” model (ie. The atom is a sphere of positive electricity with negative charges embedded in the sphere like raisins in a plumb pudding KB), to the solar system model (ie. The Rutherford-Bohr model of the atom; KB), to the electron cloud model, etc. Suzan Langer argues that all scientific language is ultimately metaphorical.
REPLY:
But it wasn't a "metaphor" when positively charged Helium nuclei were hurled back from a thin sheet of gold atoms, right back into the "metaphorical faces" of those who were testing the Thompson "plumb pudding" model of the atom. Rutherford's actual metaphor was that the observed phenomenon was like (here comes the metaphor) shooting a 15 inch shell (Rutherford may have done service in WWI) at a piece of tissue paper (gold pounded out to a thickness of 4-6 atoms; ie. gold leaf foil) and seeing the 15 inch shell (Highly energetic Helium nucleus; known as an "alpha particle" in those days; emitted from a radioactive Polonium source) reflected right back at you [by a piece of (gold foil) tissue paper]!!!
The above paraphrase of Rutherford is an actual linguistic metaphor (15 inch shells "bounced-back" by tissue paper foil).
The consequence was a new "model" of the atom, because J.J. Thompson's model could not explain the actual scientific observation of a certain percentage of Helium nuclei being widely scattered, instead of "ploughing through" the atomic equivalent of "tissue paper" (thin sheet of gold atoms), and a smaller percentage of metaphorical "15 inch shells" hurled back toward the source (metaphorical "shooters") of such metaphorical "shells" (ie. high energy Helium nuclei).
So, as you say, scientists came up with a new "picture" (not really a metaphor) of the atom, likened to a "solar system" model, which was a metaphor --- Electrons "revolving" (like planets) at great distances from a metaphorical center (a nucleus; like a metaphorical sun) of the system. But given the metaphorical distances, charge-differentials and attractive forces, the planets (electrons) should have crashed into the various nuclei (solar centres) and collapsed such atoms/systems. How come that didn't happen? New model emerges. A quantum mechanical model, with "allowed" and "disallowed" energy levels (s; p; d? etc.), or what you call the "electron cloud" atomic picture.
I don't know who Susan Langer is, but Helium nuclei are not "metaphors", nor are the atoms of gold leaf foil, nor are CERN particle accelerators. Similarly, photographic plates are, again, not "metaphors". Scientific language may be "picturesque", even metaphorical in some cases, but the science boys are talking about real things, with real cause-effect relations. They are not poets.
Ø As to understanding God "comprehensively" or "exhaustively", that is impossible for a finite being. But I get what you mean, above, I think.
JOHN:
Well, the prevailing Catholic view, I believe, is that in Beatitude we can know God to the maximum extent possible to our natures, and we can even see Him as He sees himself, in His transcendent reality. “In His light we see light (itself)” according to the Psalmist, and both Aquinas & the Catholic Catechism quote this psalm to describe the Beatific Vision. Aquinas argued that we can see God as He sees Himself, in spite of our finitude, because God *is* Intelligibility Itself. He is imminently intelligible. But as finite creatures, we cannot “comprehend” God, which means know God in the same fullness that He knows Himself.
REPLY:
Of course, the above is fine, presuming that we get to see God "face to face", rather than in a "looking glass dimly". But what if we don't make it? What if God says, "I never knew you." and, hence, begins the metaphorical "weeping and gnashing of teeth." I'm quite sure that the New Catechism of the Catholic Church still talks about Hell. I don't mean to be pessimistic. But I do know that there is a contrary option to seeing God "face to face" and I do know my behaviour isn't up to "snuff", way too often.
KEVINØ Even understanding one's own wife, husband or child, either "comprehensively or exhaustively", seems fairly near to impossible (given my experience).
JOHN:
Spoken like a good husband :-) No woman would have made that precise comment. Perhaps, in the struggle to discover the love language of one’s wife, God wants to give us a foretaste of the hard work of knowing Him & working out our salvation in fear & trembling.
REPLY:
You should have a chat with my wife, sometime --- that is my wife and her other husband! Speaking metaphorically, even though my wife is not Italian, I call her the "Italian fog", or in other words, a "Big-a-Mist". She doesn't think that it is a very good joke, nor do our children, although they smiled politely many years ago.
When my wife, who was not a Roman Catholic, divorced me, about 15 years ago, she still didn't understand either myself or "Catholic" stuff. I can remember at one point during the "divorce", my wife sayiing to me:- "I can't believe you. You're having fun during this divorce and it is costing me a fortune, even though my lawyer is working for half price." I replied, "Since I am on your side, I can't do anything else but have fun and learn 'stuff' about the legal system."
My wife never "got" that joke, either, nor did either of her two lawyers, nor several Justices of our Canadian legal system. Since Catholics do not recognize divorce, but secular people do, I tried to teach my wife and some lawyers about the difference between theology, philosophy and legal dialectic, during my wife's divorce of myself. But lawyers, including Court Justice lawyers, are pretty bad "philosophy" students.
One Court Justice really tried to understand. And even though he considered himself to be a "Christian lawyer", which is how he described himself to another lawyer, immediately prior to our second "philosophical interlocutory" (ie. Only the Justice and myself; at my 2nd Court-appearance), I suppose (now) that he had never seen "philosophical debate" (non-adversarial) practiced in "his Courtroom".
All lawyers do understand adversarial-debate in their Courtrooms. But it requires them some time to get their "heads" around non-adversarial debate. Yet, by the time Justices get their "heads" around the debate style, crimes (like perjury) have been "sanctioned" and they don't like to "sanction" crimes. So they want you back in their Courtrooms, as an adversary, to solve that problem for them. But when you are not an adversary, you can't go back to "Court" as an adversary, since you went into Court as a non-adversary (Honey! I am on your side!) ab initio! PARADOX.
Aristotle indicates the distinction between adversarial and non-adversarial debate in The Metaphysics immediately prior to asserting the PRIMARY PRINCIPLE of thought, which he subsequently explains and defends against all "comers". What he says (prior to asserting the Law of Contradiction) is that the dialectician is merely critical, but the philosopher claims to know. The sophist merely appears to be a philosopher, but is not. So the sophist is worse than the dialectician, who is actually and exceptionally critical.
In explaining why the 3 candidates for "philosopher" are distinct, he asserts that the philosopher differs from the sophist in respect of the purpose of the philsophical life. Sophists do "philosophy" to make a living. Philosophers seek the truth, whether or not they get a "living" from the endeavor. So, argues Aristotle, "sophistic is what appears to be 'philosophy', but is not." [Metaphysics; BK IV. Ch. 2. 1004b line 26-27 approx.]. In explaining the difference between the philosopher and the dialectician, he concludes that dialecticians are merely critical (whereas the philosopher claims to know) and explains their difference, as a difference in FACULTY. But he doesn't explain the facultative difference, in The Metaphysics, having previously done so, in his LOGIC treatises. Quote:-
ARISTOTLE:
"...--- For sophistic and dialectic turn on the same class of things as philosophy, but this [primary or "1st" philosophy KB] differs from dialectic in the nature of the faculty required and from sophistic in respect of the purpose of the philosophical life. Dialectic is merely critical, where philosophy claims to know, and sophistic is what appears to be philosophy but is not." [A fuller quote from Bk. IV. Ch. 2 of Aristotle's Metaphysics].---again---
ARISTOTLE:
"The demonstrative premiss differs from the dialectical because the demonstrative premiss is the assertion of one of two contradictory statements (the demonstrator does not ask for a premiss, but lays it down; ARISTOTLE's brackets not mine KB), whereas the dialectical premiss depends upon the adversary's choice between two contradictories. But this will make no difference in the production of a syllogism in either case (Of demonstration vs./or dialectic KB).; for both the demonstrator and the dialectician argue syllogistically after stating that something does or does not belong to something else." [Prior Analytics Bk. I, Ch. 1. 24a lines 21-27 approx.].
You might require a few more lessons from Aristotle's logic treatises to more clearly see that the faculty of dialectic and of dialecticians is that they clearly see logical opposites of the most extreme varieties (Contrary and Contradictory assertions, as well as contrary and contradictory qualities.) However, being merely critical, they do not seek, nor easily see (nor do most people), the middle term or "middle ground" between extreme logical opposites. Thus Aristotle calls dialectic "merely critical" and others refer to Aquinas's philosophy as the "via media" (middle way).
Of course there is no "middle ground" or "way" between adversarial and non-adversarial debate techniques. Hence, my non-adversarial debate technique, during my wife's adversarial divorce case, not only confused herself and her "Courtroom" legal professional, but also confused not only the "Christian lawyer" on the Bench, but several of his colleagues as well. That was a long time ago and I did a few other Court cases to no avail, while attempting to correct previous errors. Similar results.
Thus, I have a lot of leisure time, given the results of other court cases.
Kevin - << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>