you have surfaced the problem that every researcher has.
There is really no such thing as a purely logical exposition,
except mathematically. Doesn't
matter who does it. The
words "wave" and "particle" come readily to mind.,
as one area that was disputed for a long time.
Physicists never solved the wave/particle controversy, but just
finally shook hands and agreed to quit arguing and fighting.
The view is, treat it as a wave if you need to, and treat it as a
particle (including with different rules!) if you have to, and don't
sweat it. Regardless of one's intentions, words are not precise, though
sometimes folks believe they are.
is logic itself.
the researcher has to examine, read, and even study many references for
himself. Eventually a
distillation of all that occurs in his own mind and mindset, within his
own frame of reference and outlook.
Hopefully the reading and studying broadens and tempers that
outlook to at least some extent, making his view broader and more
inclusive. Then he has
obtained what he needs. Doesn't
mean that any one person is "right" or "wrong" all
the time! Just means one
has reached one's own accommodation, suitable for his purposes, and
one's own "shade of gray".
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 06:09:13 -0400
Mr Bearden and Mr Craddock,
thank you for the reply, I appreciate the time and effort that went into
I am perhaps a little less philosophical in my search. I was wondering
a priori was used to describe a mode of reasoning that was based
the obvious, or a mode of reasoning that was based on logic.
In most of the cases where this comes up, I am torn between having to
assume that I am unable to understand the obvious, or the logic
being presented is beyond my ability to understand. If it is the former,
then I need to study more of the subject in order to be able to
the obvious. If it is the latter, then I need to seek help to understand
logic. The answer to that question will identify which path to take to
better understand your papers.
It has been 30 years since I studied physics, and in those years
many things that were fact have changed. I am trying to determine
if I need to go back and do some extensive study of new fields
of physics in general, or - as you suggest - throw out the old
books and accept the fact that not everything we have been told
is entirely accurate. I noticed some time ago that not everything
written as fact, is fact. In some cases it is more of a religion than
religion - but that is not the subject at hand.
I recognize that the information I am seeking is contained
within your papers. I want to understand. So far, there are many
things I can't understand.
I do not wish to burden you with my question, but if you can put
me on the right path for my search, it would surely accelerate the
thanks again for your particular attention and thank both of you
( and your colleagues ) for all the information that you present to us
so freely. I for one can recognize and appreciate the time and
effort that is required to do this.