Epistemic priority: Difference between revisions

Epistemic priority (view source)

15 bytes added , 9 November 2022

no edit summary

82,882

edits

@@ Line 24: / Line 24: @@
 To pluralists, [[pragmatist]]s answer is “no.” Horses for courses. If your models works, use it.
-We know our view of the world does not accord to scientific facts. Atomic structures of granite blocks feel hard and impermeable, but atomic models tell is they are mostly comprised of space: an atom is a  walnut on the centre circle being orbited by peas at the edge of a football stadium. But that is no more true an image of an atom than a granite block. These are all just models to help us comprehend.
+We know our view of the world does not accord to scientific “realities”. Granite blocks feel hard and impermeable, but chemists tell us they are mostly comprised of space: scaled up, an atom is a walnut on the centre spot orbited by electrons the size of peas around the outside of a football stadium. ''But that is no truer an image of an atom than a granite block''. These are all just models to help us comprehend.
 (It is no little irony that the “gaze heuristic” works worst in theory — I just “kind of keep my eye on the ball and keep running” might struggle to get past peer review — but best in practice: there’s a reason not many astrophysicists play cricket for England.)