Something that strikes me as silly is the sometimes widespread assumption in philosophy that we’re able to extract ontological commitments from every scientific theory by using the same rules in each case. Not even physical theories connect to phenomena in the same way.
-
-
Sure, so some people would want to say that to interpret a theory is to do X (where X never changes). But this ends up faring poorly when the rigid account of interpretation isn’t sufficiently fine grained to capture what’s going on in two different fields at the same time.
-
So the sorts of numerical methods and calculation strategies, the modeling practices and mathematical objects, the relation between the theory and data, etc. in GR is often going to look very different than it does in QFT. Capturing that detail with one univocal account is hard
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.