Personally I find it useful to distinguish between changing relations of matter and the forces that influence them. The Earth goes round the sun, to use a simplified example, because there is a gravitational attraction, but the orbit and the gravity are not the same thing; nor even the same type of thing, in my book.Terrapin Station wrote:It tells the whole story in terms of what forces are in the most general sense. They're processes--changing relations of matter. In other words, my ontology doesn't exclude forces insofar as they exist.
Fair enough.Terrapin Station wrote:"That point of light is in a particular position relative to the 'fixed stars'" is an empirical claim.
Terrapin Station wrote:The quotation marks indicate that it's a claim. Per correspondence theory, the claim is made true via "matching" a fact--namely, the state of affairs that is that point of light in a particular position relative to the "fixed stars." What is unavailable is a proof of that claim, since it's an empirical claim, and we could be wrong about any given empirical claim.
Well, there is no proof in a logical or mathematical sense, but whether a point of light is where the empirical claim places it, is readily determined by the simple expedient of measurement.
Everyone makes mistakes, which is why peer review really is one of the cornerstones of the sciences.Terrapin Station wrote:That would could be wrong about any given empirical claim is one of the cornerstones of the sciences.
The don't generally last long enough. As you said somewhere, events are mapped in 4 dimensions. Unless the point of light in question is a 'fixed star', its position relative to them will change with t.Terrapin Station wrote:All claims are potentially revisable.
It seems to me that you are confusing empirical claims and metaphysical hypotheses, or perhaps paradigms; these do change, but the empirical data on which they are based remains the same.