In a dialogue with Jud, Tudor says:
> Ok, I go to the market and I want to convince people that electrons exist
> (or that they don't exist). Am I able to show them an electron? Am I able to
> show there is no such thing as an electron? Or senses do not help in respect
> to such a problem?
Jud returns:
> You could show them a TV screen and point out the electrons bombarding the
> screen after being fired from a gun [electron gun] If you do not believe
> electrons exist what do you think is driving your PC as you read my writing on
> the screen?
Jud, to point to the TV screen as the result of electron-bombardment as some
kind of proof of the electron's existyence is highly flawed: it assumes the
existence of the very entities it is incumbent for the interlocutor to prove
the existence of. Also, one does not *see* electrons "bombarding the screen
after...etc", one sees a TV picture; once again it is this very presumption
that might be in question and thus one hardly proves existence by presuming
it in the first place. Your argument is identical to those (contemptuous for
you) who 'prove' the existence of a creator god by pointing to the creatures
of such a creator-god: the universe and all that comprises it. Like wise any
appeal to tracks in high-speed accelerator experiments does not show,
nevermind prove the existence of, the (supposed) electrons but their
supposed tracks in interaction with the other matter in the cloud chamber;
to suggest one is seeing the electrons is once again to *presume* their
existence and learn to see the tracks *as* the traces/signs/clues of such
assumed entities; moreover, even when one has accepted the possibility that
such traces are the traces of such presumed entities, to say that one has
*seen the electrons* in seeing the tracks is like claiming one has seen the
skier when one views only the ski-tracks in the snow...
... and then there's the vexed question of individuality (for the
nominalist, only this or that electron exists, not electrons; how one shows
the existence (here, there, where?) of a single electron is a real problem
for scientists, nevermind philosophers...)...
happy skiing
.........vroooom.........
mP
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
> Ok, I go to the market and I want to convince people that electrons exist
> (or that they don't exist). Am I able to show them an electron? Am I able to
> show there is no such thing as an electron? Or senses do not help in respect
> to such a problem?
Jud returns:
> You could show them a TV screen and point out the electrons bombarding the
> screen after being fired from a gun [electron gun] If you do not believe
> electrons exist what do you think is driving your PC as you read my writing on
> the screen?
Jud, to point to the TV screen as the result of electron-bombardment as some
kind of proof of the electron's existyence is highly flawed: it assumes the
existence of the very entities it is incumbent for the interlocutor to prove
the existence of. Also, one does not *see* electrons "bombarding the screen
after...etc", one sees a TV picture; once again it is this very presumption
that might be in question and thus one hardly proves existence by presuming
it in the first place. Your argument is identical to those (contemptuous for
you) who 'prove' the existence of a creator god by pointing to the creatures
of such a creator-god: the universe and all that comprises it. Like wise any
appeal to tracks in high-speed accelerator experiments does not show,
nevermind prove the existence of, the (supposed) electrons but their
supposed tracks in interaction with the other matter in the cloud chamber;
to suggest one is seeing the electrons is once again to *presume* their
existence and learn to see the tracks *as* the traces/signs/clues of such
assumed entities; moreover, even when one has accepted the possibility that
such traces are the traces of such presumed entities, to say that one has
*seen the electrons* in seeing the tracks is like claiming one has seen the
skier when one views only the ski-tracks in the snow...
... and then there's the vexed question of individuality (for the
nominalist, only this or that electron exists, not electrons; how one shows
the existence (here, there, where?) of a single electron is a real problem
for scientists, nevermind philosophers...)...
happy skiing
.........vroooom.........
mP
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---