This is really a distraction from the discussion. Why is this semantical argument important to discuss? Although, if I were to answer it, "is" is not well-defined in physics. But "is" typically is understood to be "is modeled by". Yes, in general relativity, gravity is modeled by something different than what it is modeled by in Newtonian gravity, which is a force. General relativity didn't exist 300 years ago when gravity was difficult to accept. Newtonian gravity did. Models evolve but sometimes old models remain useful.
My entire point in this discussion was that we need new models to understand the complexity of modern society and human behavior. The old models aren't good enough. That's why I react somewhat negatively to complaining of conspiracy theories at an attempt to understand the complexity of the systems we've created and participate in.
This stuff is tough to understand and wrap one's head around. Even something as deductive, in a way, as Newtonian gravity and general relativity was met with great resistance, if not outright rejection. We shouldn't follow these patterns.
https://www.santafe.edu/culture/podcast
If you feel like it, pls do listen to this popular podcast by the Santa Fe Institute, and you'll hear them connecting things rather frenetically. Some adherents ground all this in rigorous science, but others participate very effectively as amateurs, guided by pure intuition/creativity that's often complementary and comparably fruitful. Complexity science offers an approach that elevates metaphor to a curious form of information/knowledge. Some amateurs in the community just participate in this "rhyming game" of networks, and leave the hard science to others in the community. That works fine.
Cormac McCarthy (of "The Road" and "No Country For Old Men" fame) has been hanging out with these folks for decades, and participating in their discussions even though he lacks the scientific underpinnings. These's a symbiosis of sorts between the hard and soft "scientists" doing this work. Adam Curtis sounds like he's one of the "soft" researchers. If you can't straddle this fuzzy boundary, it doesn't mean it's not real wisdom they're chewing on -- it's just not the sort everyone can easily stomach/navigate/sift imho, just as some don't have the neurotype to excel in deep programmatic thinking)
Anyhow, thanks for the opportunity to think this through out loud :)
Another place that takes a similar but more applicative view, but is less well known, is College of the Atlantic.
Thanks so so much! I feel like some kid in my "future sphere of influence" -- whatever that might be -- could very well end up there, so your comment feels impactful.
https://www.amazon.com/Chaos-Dynamical-Systems-Primers-Compl...
College of the Atlantic actually has a lot of neat videos on YouTube, and below is a tour of the campus by the college president.
the idea of an all encompassing force that affects everyone on Earth is hard to fathom, and yet gravity is an accepted idea today, where it wasn't at the start
And yet it turns out that gravity is not a force at all. Gravity is just the shape of space.