> Of the 11 dimensions, we see only 3.5. The rest we deduce based
on
> complete lack of physical evidence about what is going on...
Yes. That is the point of Peirce's pragmatism and fallibilism.
All science is fallible.
> We don't know that the effects are only submicroscopic...
There are certainly more facts that we don't know than the ones we do.
But scientists know that a huge number of facts about submicroscopic phenomena
have effects that we observe at the macroscopic level. In fact, *all*
chemical reactions are the result of quantum-level interactions.
The empirical observations made by chemists (and the earlier
alchemists) were true as far as they went. 19th century chemists
learned a large number of facts about the elements, how they interacted with
each other, the atomic weights of the known elements, and even the periodic
table of the elements.
In that regard, the chemists were *far ahead* of the physicists, many of
whom were skeptical about the existence of atoms. As late as the early
1900s, Ernst Mach refused to admit that atoms existed.
During the early 20th c, physicists used the facts discovered by chemists as
guidelines for their theories about atoms.
Today, chemists use quantum mechanics to calculate how various molecules
will react even before they synthesize them.
> Any attempt to whitewash that unknown is just "proof by emphatic
> assertion" that it doesn't matter, not real proof.
Fundamental principle: Any fact on whose truth you are willing to bet
your life is one for which your belief is very, very strong.
There are many such facts. But you have no mathematical proof For any
of them.
For example, do you drive a car? Have you ever been a passenger in a
car? Every time you do, you are betting your life on
1. Principles of physics, chemistry, electronics, and the competence
of the many engineers and mechanics who use those
principles to
design, build, and maintain your car, the cars
driven by other
drivers, and the roads and bridges over which you
drive.
2. The competence of the other drivers to control their cars
and not run into you (or at least your competence
and the
ability of your car and your driving skills to
avoid them).
3. The social habits and conventions of other drivers to stay in
their lanes and not take too many risks in the way
they drive
and how they observe speed limits and conventions.
Just take an inventory of the actions in your daily life and the all the
assumptions and beliefs on which you bet your life.
Have you ever flown in an airplane? If so, you've bet your life on
many facts about our planet, its geography, and how other people behave --
pilots, mechanics, air traffic controllers, etc.
The fact that we're all on the same planet is one that is worth
pondering. But it's irrational to doubt it.
John
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J