On Wed, 27 Oct 1999 20:36:37 +0100 DANIEL.DAVIES at flemings.com writes:
>
>
>
>Hmmm well, the distinction between "up" and "down" is taught to us in
>primary school, and up quarks don't point in the opposite direction to
>down
>quarks, so I guess Murray Gell-Mann's a worthless faker too. And
>superstrings aren't strings, so that's bad news for Hawking.
It is obvious that you don't understand how such terms are used in physics. The terms "up" and "down" refer to possible quantum states that quarks can occupy in Gell-Mann's theory. Within the context of this theory these terms have very definate meanings and the theory itself is very much testable and falsifiable (in fact Gell-Mann's quark hypothesis and the related theory of quantum chromodynamics have survived the most rigorous experimental tests). The notion of "superstrings" has a rather definate meaning within the context of quantum gravitational theory and the quest for unification of gravity with the electroweak and strong fields.
> And
>indeed,
>imaginary numbers aren't imaginary, which is bad news for someone
>else.
In mathematics an imaginary number is the product of a real number and the square root of -1. When people started talking about such numbers, they were referred to as "imaginary" because they seemed to be quite different from the kinds of numbers that mathematicians had been used to working with. In fact such numbers are no more "imaginary" or any less "real" than any of the other kinds of numbers that mathematicians deal with. Indeed, imaginary numbers (and complex numbers) have many very practical applications in science and technology. (Also, BTW an irrational number is one that is not expressable in terms of a ratio between two integers, such as the square root of 2 or the number pi).
>I've never understood what's up with science-spod types who refuse to
>learn
>a few technical terms, apply themselves and accept some metaphorical
>language when it's someone else's field, but demand limitless
>indulgence in
>their own.
Looks like Sokal & Bricment struck a nerve with you. What you fail to understand is that even when scientists use such colorful language as "up" and "down" quarks (are you aware that quarks are also said to come in "flavors" and to have "colors"? But those are merely evocative ways of describing the the quantum numbers that delineate different categories of quarks) is that these terms are given very precise definitions within the context of the theories that they appear. And these theories must in turn be at least in principle be testable and falsifiable. Can the pomos that Sokal & Bricment make the same claim for the theories that they champion. Why the attempt by so many pomo authors to take on the auror of science when their theories are clearly not scientific. And I fail to see the point of metaphors which are based on very clear misunderstandings of basic scientific or mathematical concepts. What good do such metaphors do for helping us to understand the theories and concepts being propounded by so many pomo authors.
Jim Farmelant
>
>dd
>
___________________________________________________________________ Get the Internet just the way you want it. Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month! Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.