- #1
- 32,820
- 4,718
ZapperZ submitted a new PF Insights post
See an Electron Lately?
Continue reading the Original PF Insights Post.
See an Electron Lately?
Continue reading the Original PF Insights Post.
Smattering said:All right. But when they complain that nobody has ever seen an electron, they are not claiming that their eyes are superior detectors. It's more like an allegory for the fact that the subject is too abstract for them.
Actually I see where he's coming from. He is pointing out that some people demand a concrete form of evidence of things before they are prepared to acknowledge its existence or even that 'scientists' could understand those things. That attitude makes me smile when people post ideas like that, using electrons all the time for their communication.ZapperZ said:".. an allegory for the fact that the subject is too abstract for them... " What does that even mean?!
Is it like claiming ignorance of a law after you've broken it? "Sorry officer, I didn't know I was breaking the law!" How well does that go?
Just because "they" didn't understand it doesn't make it abstract and unobservable.
Zz.
sophiecentaur said:Actually I see where he's coming from. He is pointing out that some people demand a concrete form of evidence of things before they are prepared to acknowledge its existence or even that 'scientists' could understand those things. That attitude makes me smile when people post ideas like that, using electrons all the time for their communication.
PS I was looking for a better word than "allegory" but couldn't come up with one. I assume you agree with the meat of his comment - but I found your post equally abstruse, I'm afraid.
But, of course, they don't always want to 'see' something with their own eyes. The typical person we are discussing is quite prepared to believe all sorts of 'evidence', even when presented third hand, on the grounds that they 'could understand that' and the information reinforces their prejudices. The daft arguments for and against medical treatments are an example.ZapperZ said:A "concrete form of evidence", for most people, implies seeing it with their own eyes.
ZapperZ said:".. an allegory for the fact that the subject is too abstract for them... " What does that even mean?!
Just because "they" didn't understand it doesn't make it abstract and unobservable.
Smattering said:It means that they are lacking the required background knowledge (or in some cases even the cognitive capability) to verify the presented chain of evidence, and they are not willing to just believe what they are told by someone who claims that he can.
The problem is that if you are unable to verify a presented chain of evidence yourself, then you have to believe in the judgement of others who claim that they can. With respect to natural sciences that might not be an issue for you, but there might be other areas where even you are lost.
Let's assume for example, that some law expert presents you a chain of legal arguments that you are completely unable to verify on your own. Then you might say something like "On the high seas and before the court, one's fate is in Gods hand". And this is actually the same category of statement as "Nobody has ever seen an electron". It just means: I am unable to verify this myself. So either I just believe what the so-called experts tell me, or I have to take an agnostic position.
ZapperZ said:But even you have to admit that this is not what the article was about.
It is about the use of one's eyes as the sole determination of what "exists" and what doesn't!
If you insist that it is justifiable that people who do not understand the physics involved with electrons, and that the ONLY way that they can be convinced that electrons exist is by seeing them with their own eyes (i.e. using a very poor detector), then we have nothing more to talk about here.
Smattering said:It just means: I am unable to verify this myself. So either I just believe what the so-called experts tell me, or I have to take an agnostic position.
Nugatory said:That's not quite right... In that case your choices are to believe what the experts tell you, or to decline to take any position on the grounds that you haven't studied the issue yourself. The latter is not an agnostic position - the agnostic position is that the truth is unknowable, so actively denies the possibility that the experts have the answer when the agnostic does not.
That sort of implies equal weighting to the expert view and my uninformed view. How can one hang on to an uninformed view on the off chance that it could possibly be right (the probability being based on ignorance, perhaps). This has been the approach of medical quackery and many people have suffered accordingly.Smattering said:I always thought that not taking a position is the main point about agnosticism. But if you think that agnosticism refers to a specific motive for not taking a position, then let's just call it "not taking a position".
sophiecentaur said:That sort of implies equal weighting to the expert view and my uninformed view. How can one hang on to an uninformed view on the off chance that it could possibly be right (the probability being based on ignorance, perhaps).
Smattering said:Because there are people who simply have no trust in authority, and who are not willing to accept authority.
"See an Electron Lately?" is a comment or joke often used in the scientific community to refer to the difficulty of observing or tracking the movement of electrons, which are subatomic particles that carry a negative charge.
Electrons are very small and move at incredibly fast speeds, making them difficult to observe or track using traditional methods. Additionally, their behavior is governed by the principles of quantum mechanics, which can be complex and unpredictable.
Scientists use a variety of techniques and instruments, such as electron microscopes and particle accelerators, to indirectly study the behavior of electrons. They also use mathematical models and theories to understand their properties and interactions.
Yes, advancements in technology have allowed scientists to develop more powerful and precise instruments for studying electrons. For example, the development of the scanning tunneling microscope in the 1980s revolutionized our ability to visualize and manipulate individual atoms and electrons.
Electrons play a crucial role in many fundamental processes, such as chemical reactions and electricity. Understanding their behavior is essential for advancing our knowledge in fields such as physics, chemistry, and materials science. Additionally, studying electrons has practical applications, such as in the development of new technologies and materials.