2 ms·

I actually find it very illustrative. It is a way of saying that something is just what it is, and we can't really say why. It is both succinct and rooted in cu

by wowoc 14y ago

I actually find it very illustrative. It is a way of saying that something is just what it is, and we can't really say why. It is both succinct and rooted in culture, thus rather easily understandable. Using such metaphor is similar to writing poetry: you can compress a pack of thoughts and emotions in just a few words. And you can replace "God" with whatever you want if you're that much biased.

bobwaycott 14y ago
This is actually quite a projection on your end. Saying "God" != "something is just what it is, and we can't really say why." It is typically, from an investigatory and cultural-historical standpoint, a curiosity-stopper, not an explanation (or even a signifier of an explanation). It is equivalent to stating "magic" (ignoring for just this moment the generational and historical bit offered as explanation for the term's usage). Including references to "God" in an attempted explanation of quantum mechanics is not "easily understandable". Moreover, it's rootedness in culture brings with it myriad histories that impact the way a reader understands what a writer intends. Explaining quantum mechanics by anthropomorphising a God-construct who "chose" to make something one way versus some other way is distracting to readers who do not inject God-construct into their own explanations specifically to avoid making understanding more difficult on the reader. I can accept that this is a practice from the author's field and generation and still find it distracting and unhelpful without that equating to me being "that much biased." God does not elicit a mentally neutral concept that compresses "a pack of thoughts and emotions in just a few words" when discussing quantum mechanics. It would still be better for the author to not use "God", insofar as it eliminates mysterious language from his explanation, thus reducing the overhead of his reader needing to substitute a non-loaded term (especially when dealing with the sciences, where injecting the term "God" has a history rooted in Western culture of not being too helpful and enlightening). I can accept it being a practice among the community. That, however, does not imply it is an easily understood, necessary, or sufficient shorthand.

by wowoc 14y ago

bobwaycott 14y ago

This is actually quite a projection on your end. Saying "God" != "something is just what it is, and we can't really say why." It is typically, from an investigatory and cultural-historical standpoint, a curiosity-stopper, not an explanation (or even a signifier of an explanation). It is equivalent to stating "magic" (ignoring for just this moment the generational and historical bit offered as explanation for the term's usage). Including references to "God" in an attempted explanation of quantum mechanics is not "easily understandable". Moreover, it's rootedness in culture brings with it myriad histories that impact the way a reader understands what a writer intends. Explaining quantum mechanics by anthropomorphising a God-construct who "chose" to make something one way versus some other way is distracting to readers who do not inject God-construct into their own explanations specifically to avoid making understanding more difficult on the reader. I can accept that this is a practice from the author's field and generation and still find it distracting and unhelpful without that equating to me being "that much biased." God does not elicit a mentally neutral concept that compresses "a pack of thoughts and emotions in just a few words" when discussing quantum mechanics. It would still be better for the author to not use "God", insofar as it eliminates mysterious language from his explanation, thus reducing the overhead of his reader needing to substitute a non-loaded term (especially when dealing with the sciences, where injecting the term "God" has a history rooted in Western culture of not being too helpful and enlightening). I can accept it being a practice among the community. That, however, does not imply it is an easily understood, necessary, or sufficient shorthand.