LOL, VR!!! But you seem to be describing the very process whereby I infer the existence of God: that is, from effects. :^) (The “leap of faith” is not entirely blind….)
We know the unseen mass of the iceberg very well from the visible part, the fraction being fixed by the ratio of densities, ice to liquid water.
Well, we sure do know that by now – if we are educated people. But what would the first man who ever laid eyes on an iceberg have seen? Or what would an uneducated denizen of an Amazonian rainforest see today, on his first glimpse of an iceberg? Would he be thinking to look “beneath the surface” on his very first take on the problem? Or instantly perform the necessary calculations whereby the “truth of the iceberg” may be established?
Of course not! The fact is, a whole lot of blood and sweat and tears have gone into solving problems like this, over very long courses of time, as man got better and better skilled at handling this sort of problem. And we are indebted specifically to the physical sciences for making these kinds of discoveries/explanations possible in the first place.
But if a thing doesn't touch the real world at all, it's not very useful to worry about it. We used to think this stuff called ether pervaded all space. It was the medium that light waves rippled in.
I’m sorry but I’ve got to be a real “meanie” here and simply point out that what you personally regard as “useful” in the way reality is to be truthfully understood, given your understanding of “the real world,” is not necessarily exhaustive of possible approaches that might be brought to bear on the problem. I might spend a whole lot of time worrying about things that, for you, do not exist. Maybe that might make me a classifiable maniac. But then again, maybe not.
As for this ether business, that probably in its time was a very useful way to explore certain physical problems that man had become curious about. The hypothesis was tested and falsified – and thereby the total stock of reliable scientific knowledge was increased, to the great benefit of us human beings.
You said: “If there's an ether, it doesn't do anything at all. You might as well say there isn't one.” Well, you could say that. Or you could say that ether didn’t do anything at all – in the timescale of the experiment, of the observation. Can you rule out the latter for a certainty?
I’m not saying that I can answer a problem like this. If I have a point to make (and there may be some who doubt this) it is that any given generation rests on the achievements of generations that came before it. So I don’t disparage the “ether theorists”; I’m grateful to them for raising the issue. And then I’m grateful to Michelson and Morely, for testing it and finding it wanting. For every great advance in human knowledge and understanding of the “continuing revelation” of the truth of reality that has ever been made in past history becomes in its turn the staging ground for the next great advance. If science (not to mention the other knowledge disciplines) is doing its job right.
Which is why thinkers of all descriptions must stay open to what they do not know. For absent a lived sense of what we do not know, there is no spur to greater knowledge.
If God peeked out from behind a cloud, said "Hi!," and turned Bill Clinton into a pillar of salt, science could detect that event occurring. It could not explain it by any naturalist principles of which we know at present.… The problem is that we have no actual analog for this event in real life.…
LOL VadeRetro! OK I can buy that. But is it still OK if people like me think that the scenario you lay out here is hilariously funny? And, were it actually to manifest in actual reality, simultaneously an act of great justice?
Hey, I guess maybe that means that my sense of humor is not dependent in the least on whether or not there is an “actual analog for this event in real life” according to your meaning…. But then maybe my hilarity in this event might constitute an “analog” of some type?
I mean, I do not put myself forward as the model of truth here; at the same time, neither am I or my experience in this world exactly “chopped liver.” :^)
(VR I do hope you find all this as funny as I do….)
Best to you, VR, most highly esteemed “opposite number” in this “debate.” Thank you so much, sincerely – bb.
Yes, but which God? And are you sure the God hypothesis is the most parsimonious?
But what would the first man who ever laid eyes on an iceberg have seen?
A dazzling white floating lump. He was probably wrong about whatever he thought it was.
The fact is, a whole lot of blood and sweat and tears have gone into solving problems like this, over very long courses of time, as man got better and better skilled at handling this sort of problem.
It's too soon to rest on laurels. Science is the horse we rode to here on.
I’m sorry but I’ve got to be a real “meanie” here and simply point out that what you personally regard as “useful” in the way reality is to be truthfully understood, given your understanding of “the real world,” is not necessarily exhaustive of possible approaches that might be brought to bear on the problem. I might spend a whole lot of time worrying about things that, for you, do not exist. Maybe that might make me a classifiable maniac. But then again, maybe not.
You don't seem violent, but you seem to wonder why I and some others don't see those other truths, that other reality, that you have in your head. It's because those things are in your head.