Einstein on the train

[uwot]

For centuries "facts" within science come and go or change.

As I said, facts are:

...the results of experiments, and the maths that describe them.

It is still the case that apples fall to the ground and that they accelerate at 9.8mss, those are facts. It is the explanations and mathematical models -the stories- which change.

Now your assumptions and beliefs, which can be seen throughout your book, are clouding and distorting the actual and real FACTS.

Perhaps, so what are the "real FACTS" and how did you arrive at them?

[Age]

For centuries "facts" within science come and go or change.

As I said, facts are:
...the results of experiments, and the maths that describe them.

Yes I KNOW what you said. I have read this. The very reason I wrote what I did to you about 'facts' is because of the very words you say.

It is still the case that apples fall to the ground and that they accelerate at 9.8mss, those are facts.

Who said that they were NOT facts, at this moment, when this is written?

It is the explanations and mathematical models -the stories- which change.

Are you TRYING TO suggest that over the centuries there are absolutely NO scientific "facts" that have changed?

Now your assumptions and beliefs, which can be seen throughout your book, are clouding and distorting the actual and real FACTS.

Perhaps, so what are the "real FACTS" and how did you arrive at them?

You asked me before what are the real FACTS? So, I gave you a list of some of them before.

Through Honesty, Openness, and a seriously Want to change, which involves taking a good LOOK AT things and especially one's self, that is HOW I arrived at real FACTS.

[uwot]

It is still the case that apples fall to the ground and that they accelerate at 9.8mss, those are facts.

Who said that they were NOT facts, at this moment, when this is written?

It is the explanations and mathematical models -the stories- which change.

Are you TRYING TO suggest that over the centuries there are absolutely NO scientific "facts" that have changed?

To the best of my knowledge, apples have always fallen to the ground, accelerating at 9.8mss.

You asked me before what are the real FACTS? So, I gave you a list of some of them before.

Through Honesty, Openness, and a seriously Want to change, which involves taking a good LOOK AT things and especially one's self, that is HOW I arrived at real FACTS.

Right. Since I do not understand how you could establish that apples accelerate earthwards at 9.8mss by looking at yourself, you and I clearly mean different things by 'fact'.

[Age]

It is still the case that apples fall to the ground and that they accelerate at 9.8mss, those are facts.

Who said that they were NOT facts, at this moment, when this is written?

It is the explanations and mathematical models -the stories- which change.

Are you TRYING TO suggest that over the centuries there are absolutely NO scientific "facts" that have changed?

To the best of my knowledge, apples have always fallen to the ground, accelerating at 9.8mss.

By answering the way you have here are you purposely TRYING TO deflect away from the actual question that I asked?

Are you completely unaware that SOME 'facts' remain the same, while SOME 'facts' end up changing when they are proven to be actually false and/or wrong? Or, are you just TRYING your hardest to not LOOK AT and/or acknowledge this FACT?

You asked for comments and feedback in regards to your book. All I was doing was pointing out that the 'facts', which you mention in your book, are NOT necessarily the absolute True 'facts' forever more, as this is what you were attempting to infer in your book.

Surely this FACT did NOT need this much time and effort for you to be able to recognize and SEE this? Surely you would have KNOWN this prior to me pointing it out for you here?

Maybe you do NOT want to acknowledge this FACT because of what that means for you and for your book? Just some thing to think about.

You asked me before what are the real FACTS? So, I gave you a list of some of them before.

Through Honesty, Openness, and a seriously Want to change, which involves taking a good LOOK AT things and especially one's self, that is HOW I arrived at real FACTS.

Right. Since I do not understand how you could establish that apples accelerate earthwards at 9.8mss by looking at yourself, you and I clearly mean different things by 'fact'.

For the person/people who discovered/worked out that apples accelerate earthwards at 9.8mss, did they arrive at this conclusion by NOT being Honest and Open, or, by being Honest and Open?

If it was the latter, then how is that any different to what I said?

To CHECK if one is being Truly Open and Honest when LOOKING AT studies and results one also needs to be able to LOOK AT one's self Honestly and Openly to SEE if there are any biases, assumptions, and/or beliefs interfering with any thing.

Also, you proposed that you KNEW some thing here. So, what did you PRESUME I was meaning by 'fact', which was supposedly "clearly different" from your meaning?

What do you mean by 'fact'?

What I meant by 'fact' is it is a thing that is proved to be true. Now, is this "clearly different" from the meaning you give to the word 'fact'?

[uwot]

You've lost me. First you say this:

Are you completely unaware that SOME 'facts' remain the same, while SOME 'facts' end up changing when they are proven to be actually false and/or wrong?

Then this:

What I meant by 'fact' is it is a thing that is proved to be true.

You appear to be mixing up epistemology and ontology. What difference does our belief about it make to a state of affairs? For example, something like 'The earth is the centre of the universe', was never a fact just because everyone believed it to be true.

Now, is this "clearly different" from the meaning you give to the word 'fact'?

Yes either way. The facts are the facts whether we know them or not.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Amazing the difference a good proofreader can make.

[uwot]

Amazing the difference a good proofreader can make.

Good point. Siddiqua Akhtar did a great job in that regard. Grant Bartley, the editor of Philosophy Now, is having a look at it and everyone will get the credit they are due.

[Age]

You've lost me. First you say this:

Are you completely unaware that SOME 'facts' remain the same, while SOME 'facts' end up changing when they are proven to be actually false and/or wrong?

Then this:

What I meant by 'fact' is it is a thing that is proved to be true.

You appear to be mixing up epistemology and ontology.

To me I do not see that I am mixing things up. But we will have to wait and see if I am or not.

What difference does our belief about it make to a state of affairs?

Nothing, and a lot. Depending on what perspective you are coming from. The very reason I do NOT have beliefs is because of the distortions and confusion they can so easily cause. For example, some people BELIEVE that some things have already been PROVEN to be, so then they BELIEVE that 'that' is a "fact", when to some "others" "it" is clearly NOT a fact at all. The difference your belief/s can make to a state of affairs although 'should' be none can, however, be huge. BELIEFS, in and of themselves, can actually create and cause a great deal of difference to the "state of affairs" in regarding truths and facts.

For example, something like 'The earth is the centre of the universe', was never a fact just because everyone believed it to be true.

And what happens when the speed of the apple accelerating towards earth changes? Are you going to then say, if your are still around, that 'apples accelerate earthwards at 9.8mss' was NEVER a fact also? And, just because everyone, at that time, BELIEVED it to be true that did NOT make it a fact? Are you aware that the Universe is dynamic and therefore facts CAN and DO change.

The fact is more than likely some people, at a particular time, would have said; 'The earth is the center of the Universe' IS a fact. Just like some people, at the time of when this is written, say; Apples accelerate earthwards at 9.8mss IS a fact. But this fact will probably change when the earth's orbit of the sun changes, so when does a 'fact' not become a 'fact' anymore?

What is proved to be true, at one particular point of time, and is said to be a fact may not be a fact at another particular point of time. Surely you could not get lost understanding this fact. So, the feedback I gave you from the outset of this thread; What you call "facts" are NOT necessarily FACTS, in and of themselves. is still some thing I would at least consider, if I were you. Especially when ASSUMING and portraying in your book that 'facts' will remain facts, forever more. You asked for feedback. I have provided some. You are FREE to choose to consider it or NOT. If you do NOT consider it at all, then it is of no real concern to me.

By the way, I also asked you: What do you mean by 'fact'? If I supposedly lost you, then maybe that has some thing to do with the definition of the word 'fact' that you are using here. When, and if, you provide that definition, then that might make it easy for me to help you so that you do NOT get lost again, or more. I provided my definition so that would help you, readers, to understand exactly where I am coming from.

When I ask for feedback and comments, and to be questioned and challenged, then I MEAN I want absolutely every word and letter scrutinized and critiqued so that absolutely EVERY wrong that is in there is highlighted and brought to the attention of all here so that EVERY wrong is CORRECTED. I know some might not like having their writings critiqued this much, but I Truly love it and WANT it.

Learning more and anew comes about much quicker when being SHOWN what is WRONG in my thinking. Learning more and anew is what I MOST desire. But then again 'I' am NOT 'you'. So, what I Truly WANT and DESIRE is NOT what 'you' Truly WANT and DESIRE.

Now, is this "clearly different" from the meaning you give to the word 'fact'?

Yes

HOW, exactly, is the meaning 'I' give to the word 'fact' "clearly different" from the meaning that "you" give to the word 'fact'?

If you do NOT provide YOUR meaning and definition, then HOW will I ever KNOW that our they are "clearly" different?

either way. The facts are the facts whether we know them or not.

So, what exactly is the definition of the word 'fact' that you are using here?

If the 'facts' are the 'facts' even if "we" NEVER know them, then how are facts arrived at. You earlier implied that facts are through the results of experiments, and the maths that describe them.

[surreptitious57]

what exactly is the definition of the word fact that you are using here ?

A fact is a statement that is taken to be true [ logically / empirically ] at the time it is made

Empirical facts can become invalid over time with the acquisition of new knowledge
This is why something which is a fact now may not necessarily be a fact in the future

Logical facts by contrast are generally more rigorous than empirical ones
This is because logic is a deductive discipline rather than an inductive one
And also because the axioms of logic are entirely separate from empiricism

[Greta]

Brilliant work, William, and genuinely useful for science fans due to the material's clarity and tendency to fill those little gaps often left out in other explanations. There's much in there to think about. The way the universe and atoms came about is killer info!

Is this your masterwork or do you have follow-up material in mind? It seems that you have deliberately treated time a tad incidentally here, which suggests to me that you are saving it up for a future episode.

[uwot]

What I meant by 'fact' is it is a thing that is proved to be true.

You appear to be mixing up epistemology and ontology.

Granted it's confusing, but there is a difference between conditions and events in the universe and the statements we make about them.
It might help if we distinguish between 'fact' and 'truth'.
Take a fairly uncontentious statement like:
'Apples fall to the ground.'
If we can agree that is what happens, then there should be little dissent over whether 'Apples fall to the ground' is true. It is true, because it corresponds with reality. (I'm assuming a fairly robust version of the correspondence theory of truth, which I won't go into here because academic epistemology can be seriously dreary, but if you are a glutton for punishment, go nuts: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/trut ... spondence/ )

Long story short: the universe is what it is and it does what it does-all of which are facts. We look at these facts and make statements about them which may or may not be true. As you point out though:

...the Universe is dynamic and therefore facts CAN and DO change.

Indeed. Had an English speaker been around 65 million years ago, they could have uttered the words 'There are dinosaurs walking the earth' without fear of contradiction. Anyone who says it now is saying something which is untrue, because it does not correspond with the facts.

The fact is more than likely some people, at a particular time, would have said; 'The earth is the center of the Universe' IS a fact.

Well yes, it is a fact that people would have said this, and they would have been saying something untrue, because it isn't a fact.

You asked for feedback. I have provided some.

And I am grateful. Thank you.

If the 'facts' are the 'facts' even if "we" NEVER know them, then how are facts arrived at. You earlier implied that facts are through the results of experiments, and the maths that describe them.

Yeah, you got me bang to rights. I was a bit loose with my use, but then it's an introductory book, and I forget how tenacious some people can be.

[uwot]

Brilliant work, William, and genuinely useful for science fans due to the material's clarity and tendency to fill those little gaps often left out in other explanations. There's much in there to think about. The way the universe and atoms came about is killer info!

Is this your masterwork or do you have follow-up material in mind? It seems that you have deliberately treated time a tad incidentally here, which suggests to me that you are saving it up for a future episode.

Thank you Greta. Yeah, there's a whole chapter on time in the book (had to leave something out, or no one would buy the bloody thing.)

[Greta]

Brilliant work, William, and genuinely useful for science fans due to the material's clarity and tendency to fill those little gaps often left out in other explanations. There's much in there to think about. The way the universe and atoms came about is killer info!

Is this your masterwork or do you have follow-up material in mind? It seems that you have deliberately treated time a tad incidentally here, which suggests to me that you are saving it up for a future episode.

Thank you Greta. Yeah, there's a whole chapter on time in the book (had to leave something out, or no one would buy the bloody thing.)

It leaves you free to go hard into the nitty gritty of time in your next publication!

[uwot]

Brilliant work, William, and genuinely useful for science fans due to the material's clarity and tendency to fill those little gaps often left out in other explanations. There's much in there to think about. The way the universe and atoms came about is killer info!

Is this your masterwork or do you have follow-up material in mind? It seems that you have deliberately treated time a tad incidentally here, which suggests to me that you are saving it up for a future episode.

Thank you Greta. Yeah, there's a whole chapter on time in the book (had to leave something out, or no one would buy the bloody thing.)

It leaves you free to go hard into the nitty gritty of time in your next publication!

The irony is that the chapter on time is 'Einstein on the train', which is the title of the whole book. Anyway, here's the stuff on the blog: https://willybouwman.blogspot.com

[Greta]

Thank you Greta. Yeah, there's a whole chapter on time in the book (had to leave something out, or no one would buy the bloody thing.)

It leaves you free to go hard into the nitty gritty of time in your next publication!

The irony is that the chapter on time is 'Einstein on the train', which is the title of the whole book. Anyway, here's the stuff on the blog: https://willybouwman.blogspot.com

It looks like, if the chapter on time is extended or forms part of another tome, it might need a different title - Planck, Bohr and Heisenberg on the Aerial Hayride?