Tom,
"Experimental results or other empirical observations don't exist in any other framework than theory, if they are part of science."
The experiments upon which f=ma was modeled were not conducted within a theoretical framework. Theory is what was forced onto mass afterwards. From that point on physics was converted into the source for theoretical interpretations of empirical evidence. The empirical evidence does not require theory for its meaning. It arrives with its meaning intact. That meaning is lost immediately because the equations used to model the patterns observed in empirical evidence were forged to represent theorists guesses.
"Where we differ fundamentally, James, is that it's not just theory you reject. By denying that theory is essential to a scientific judgment, you also reject the correspondence theory of truth, and therefore reject objective knowledge itself. What I mean is, though you may be correct in all you write about physics, you will never have a way to show that you are INcorrect. Without that element, there is no way to distinguish science from religion or philosophy. Is that what you really want?
I return physics equations to their empirical forms. They tell us what they may. Whether or not I explain them correctly is not important. What is important is that physicists get to see them free of their theory. The equations represent the patterns observed in empirical evidence. That is the correspondence that matters. No experiments have ever been performed on either space or time. For that reason relativity theory is proven to be only a theoretical artifact. The relativity type effects need to be represented by equations in their empirical forms. That work is done. Physics should not be about theory. It should be about what the patterns observed in empirical evidence tells us on their own.
"If you think it's careless and irresponsible of me to criticize your work by this standard, then what standard would you like me to use?"
You weren't criticizing my work! I had to spend my time writing messages to keep pointing out to people that you clearly had no understanding of what it is that I have done. Your usual pursuit of perfection when discussing theory was totally abandoned. You might as well have been picking up mud balls and throwing them against a wall. You certainly were not criticizing my work.
"If you say I'm not getting the "real points," understand that points of data are not real to me unless accompanied by a theoretical explanation. That's what realism means -- correspondence between elements of language (theory) and elements of nature (phenomena)."
"The points of data upon which f=ma is modeled give you no justification for making mass a fundamentally indefinable property. Here again, it is frustrating that you can be so good with higher level theory and be so unaware of the details of fundamental theory.
"Your real point -- "mass is an indefinable property" -- ignores the fact that definitions are always taken in terms of other definitions; i.e., E = mc^2 does define mass in terms of energy."
This is a clear example of my statement immediately above. Mass was not defined in terms of other definitions. It is clearly inappropriate to claim that it is defined by a property that is defined using mass. This circular reasoning may be useful for theorists but it cannot be argued that mass is defined in terms of pre-existing properties. It wasn't and still isn't. My argument has nothing to do with e=mc^2. That comes afterward. My argument is that mass must be defined in the same terms as is its empirical evidence. My further argument is that all properties must be defined in the same terms as is their empirical evidence. Theorists chose to not define mass. Circular reasoning can never make that error right.
"When you say that there is no language that can define mass, you imply that E = mc^2 is untrue and therefore special relativity is untrue. Your claim that relativity survives without theory is not supported -- the phenomena has to correspond to the language, and the language is primary. If you really believe that relativity is falsified, you should work on a competing theory that incorporates all the phenomena that special relativity explains, rather than declaring that any theory is worthless to describe physical phenomena. That is, if you don't want to wear the label, "anti-science.""
This paragraph makes it clear that you still have no understanding of what I do or have done. You definitely are not aware of the work that exists at my website. The equations you ask for have been there since 2001.
"I've gotten a reputation around here for being overly stubborn in defense of rationalism and realism, though I don't deny -- as you say -- having "insufficient knowledge" to evaluate anti-rationalist and anti-realist philosophies. I even separate the two -- I can tolerate arguing with anti-realism; there's prodigious literature in quantum theory espousing that view. Anti-rationalist, though, is against the very idea of science as a rationalist enterprise."
Just because you belong to a group who have adopted the word rationalist in their chosen name doesn't make me irrational. Empirical evidence is realism. Theory consists of guesses about the unknown.
"James, if you accept that scientific method contributes any value to objective knowledge, accept that theory is essential. If you want to reject objective knowledge altogether, it's unlikely to attract my personal interest, though there are plenty of schools of philosophy and religion that embrace that idea."
Correspondence between theory and evidence is almost automatic by design. Empirical evidence cannot prove that which is an empirically unjustified invention. It is ironic that that through theory physics has been made philosophical. That is not what I do.
James Putnam
