Religion

Jim__

(14,063 posts)

9. Rather than give my understanding, I'll refer you to 12:20 - 13:00 of the video.

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 09:06 PM

Jun 2012

I spoke from memory, and the actual words used by Chomsky - referring to Galileo - was to something like "construct a mechanical model." He gives an example of a device that would mimic the tides. Again, I don't have the text and am quoting from memory of the video; but the part of his talk I was referring to was around the 12:20 - 13:00 minute mark.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

37 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Professor Chomsky Presents a Problem for Empiricists, Positivists, Materialists [View all] tiny elvis Jun 2012 OP

I generally find myself agreeing with Chomsky struggle4progress Jun 2012 #1

Chomsky is a problem for everyone. jeepnstein Jun 2012 #2

is there a positive corollary to prof chomsky's negative argument? tiny elvis Jun 2012 #3

"The 17th century scientific revolution reached its highest peak..." Humanist_Activist Jun 2012 #4

what bends space and time into fields of influence? tiny elvis Jun 2012 #13

Umm...matter does. laconicsax Jun 2012 #14

matter, gravitation are not superior answers to the answer that god did it tiny elvis Jun 2012 #15

They are vastly superior answers. laconicsax Jun 2012 #19

Yes, they are superior muriel_volestrangler Jun 2012 #20

As laconix said, matter does... Humanist_Activist Jun 2012 #16

You can find the quote here; it seems to mean that forces acting at a distance are needed muriel_volestrangler Jun 2012 #5

I like your assessment. daaron Jun 2012 #6

Chomsky recognizes that today's science doesn't exclude action at a distance. Jim__ Jun 2012 #7

A question. eqfan592 Jun 2012 #8

Rather than give my understanding, I'll refer you to 12:20 - 13:00 of the video. Jim__ Jun 2012 #9

He talks about an artisan constructing a physical model muriel_volestrangler Jun 2012 #21

"For Galileo real understanding requires a mechanical model,that is a device that an artisan can ... Jim__ Jun 2012 #22

RE: intelligibility of models in modern physics. daaron Jun 2012 #23

Have you watched the video? Jim__ Jun 2012 #25

I watched the part referred to. daaron Jun 2012 #26

If you want to discuss what Chomsky said, you really need to listen to what he said. Jim__ Jun 2012 #27

Sorry. Didn't realize this was a Chomsky-only thread. Nevermind. nt daaron Jun 2012 #29

He never mentions a lowering of the standard of proof, tho. At least not in that segment or... eqfan592 Jun 2012 #32

Yes, I acknowledged that in post #22. - n/t Jim__ Jun 2012 #33

Ooops, my bad, I missed that. eqfan592 Jun 2012 #34

No problem. Jim__ Jun 2012 #35

Mysterian? skepticscott Jun 2012 #10

u da man tiny elvis Jun 2012 #12

Hm. Either Chomsky doesn't quite understand our common understanding --> daaron Jun 2012 #17

By "common understanding" Chomsky was referring to our innate capabilities. Jim__ Jun 2012 #24

I get it. I just don't get it. daaron Jun 2012 #28

They *thought* that a mechanical model demarcates what we can completely understand muriel_volestrangler Jun 2012 #30

I agree that any claim about the limit of our innate capacities is subjective. Jim__ Jun 2012 #31

Also Einstein tama Jun 2012 #36

Hm. Is there a point in there, somewhere? nt daaron Jun 2012 #37

good digging, ms. v tiny elvis Jun 2012 #11

'deprives it of much significance' is a subjective opinion muriel_volestrangler Jun 2012 #18