Then you need to explain how come that all those people until 1869 (to go with the dating of Mendeleev's version) have survived. And also all those after that who don't know about it.
also, I propose that there are no exceptions to the following definition of truth: truth is a prediction which matches a perception. It has to do with the idea of an ultimate reality and our ability to comprehend.
This thread is a circus of miscommunication. In other words, there's a lot of "I don't agree with what I think you meant by that" going on.
I dont think this is true. Models are more or less adequate for predicting the probabilities of making specified observations. They're not the kind of thing that can be right or wrong.
Incomplete then. They are resolution dependent is probably a better way to put it. I was paraphrasing http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/George_E._P._Box.
When AlexG said that we "experience the periodic table every day", he wasn't talking about directly perceiving the different types of individual atoms. He was talking about perceiving a world that is the way it is because the properties of the elements are what they are. In other words, if the periodic table looked different, so would the world. Further, it seems to me that you and river are also not on the same page, but that's not really your fault I don't think. He should have been a bit more clear and comprehensive with his opening comments. I don't really think that he truly disagrees with the observation that models are merely our best working representation of the nature of things that we can't directly perceive. But you could always just ask him directly I guess.
Well, I know that. And I disagree with you also. If the periodic table looked different the world wouldn't look any different. We just would have a different way of describing. However, if the world looked different, then so would the periodic table. You just made a blatant map-terrain error. The periodic table is not reality. It is a method of describing reality. No words or pictures will ever be the reality they represent and this isn't a trivial point. Reality doesn't change. But our understanding of it does. I thought I did. ETA: Thanks for the response. Sorry I was too vague.
You seem to be focusing entirely on the details of how we choose to represent our approximations of the properties of physicality according to our observations. For example, if we had evolved on some other planet in some other galaxy, we would likely be using different symbols, different units, and would probably be doing it with something like base-8 math if we happened to have 8 fingers instead of 10. However, if the actual properties of physicality were different, then the world would indeed be different, and even if all other things were equal somehow, the periodic table of elements (or equivalent) would look different if you had the opportunity to compare it to that of another possible world. Of course.
For the record, my comment about the confusion I observed in this thread wasn't directed at you specifically. Further, I'm happy for you to elaborate if I'm still missing something.
Well, The Ptolemaic system of the planets was true for a long time until is wasn't. It predicted as well as their instruments could resolve. The actual properties of the planets involved epicycles. Then they didn't. We get more precise as we go along but I'm not sure you could make a case for the physical world itself being physical if you get down deep enough. The periodic table is great for a particular range of resolution but not so useful outside of that range. Perhaps you are proposing that there is no 'outside' that range?
I tend to agree. But given the relativism you introduce, it's hard to say that "we get more precise as we go along." The question is, how many of these models or maps that we set up are really useful for us, at least in important ways. How much does one really need to know about things (ie. what models must one be fluent in) in order to interact with the environment and people in a manner perceived as satisfactory to oneself? One needn't know anything about the periodic table and can still be a good cook.
