"Causality" or "determinism"?
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: ARINDAM BANERJEE, THE greatest cuckoo of all time
Next: How is SR this probability problem explained?
From: Wayne Throop on 7 Mar 2010 20:06 :: Name three cases where this has been true, historically. : Jenny <yuancur(a)gmail.com> : Galileo: An object keeps moving at a constant speed in a straight line : unless acted upon by a force. : : Einstein: The speed of light is the same in all inertial frames, : : De Broglie: Electrons behave like waves. The notable thing about your examples is that they are all responses to *new* *facts*. In none of them was the theory changed just because of philosophical prejudices alone, as Tue proposes. Well, plus of course that that's not Galileo who came up with that. What Galileo came up with is the principle of relativity, to which Einstein added constancy of lightspeed to get modern relativity. And Galileo didn't come up with (to pick a better example) the notion that all objects fall at the same rate just because it's simpler. He came up with it due to *observations*. Einstein was trying to explain actual observations about lightspeed. And De Broglie observations about electrons. None of them came up with new theories *only* because the old theories were too complicated. They came up with new theories because the old theories had problems dealing with new observations. Wayne Throop throopw(a)sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
From: Tue Sorensen on 7 Mar 2010 20:17 On 8 Mar., 01:14, thro...(a)sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote: > : Tue Sorensen <sorenson...(a)gmail.com> > : Yes, precision is called for. However, sometimes innovations have to > : come from radically different approaches, because current paradigmatic > : thinking has painted itself into a corner. > > Name three cases where this has been true, historically. I shouldn't have to. Depending on your range of definition, there should be hundreds of cases. You probably know as much about the history of science as I do. Established and respected scientists often claim that it is important to be open to completely different and innovative ideas. However, they themselves rarely are. Which I guess is all right, as 99 out of 100 alleged innovators really are crackpots. As for me, we'll just have to wait and see. - Tue
From: Wayne Throop on 7 Mar 2010 20:18 : Tue Sorensen <sorensonian(a)gmail.com> : Free will : = decision-making = determining outcomes. Hence, human free will makes : us determinants. Sort of masters of determinism in a deterministic : world. I think this makes a lot of sense. :-) Well, first, it sounds more like gibberish than a "lot of sense". As well as simply redefining words willy nilly, ignoring their usual meanings, which can only hurt understanding, not to mention absolutely nuking any chance for "simplicity". Hence the impression of gibberish. And second, and perhaps more importantly, the universe doesn't care what you think makes sense. Wayne Throop throopw(a)sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
From: Wayne Throop on 7 Mar 2010 20:21 :: sometimes innovations have to come from radically different :: approaches, because current paradigmatic thinking has painted itself :: into a corner. : Tue Sorensen <sorensonian(a)gmail.com> : I shouldn't have to. Well then, I guess I know how seriously to take your claim that it "sometimes happens". : Established and respected scientists often claim that it is important : to be open to completely different and innovative ideas. You haven't presenting any ideas, let alone new or innovative ones. You've just tossed some word salads, and demonstrated that you don't know how the current theories work while attempting to disparage them. Wayne Throop throopw(a)sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
From: Erik Max Francis on 7 Mar 2010 20:25
Tue Sorensen wrote: > On 8 Mar., 01:14, thro...(a)sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote: >> : Tue Sorensen <sorenson...(a)gmail.com> >> : Yes, precision is called for. However, sometimes innovations have to >> : come from radically different approaches, because current paradigmatic >> : thinking has painted itself into a corner. >> >> Name three cases where this has been true, historically. > > I shouldn't have to. Depending on your range of definition, there > should be hundreds of cases. You probably know as much about the > history of science as I do. If there are hundreds of cases, then surely you can name a few. The reason he asked the question is because there are approximately zero actual examples in the history of science. -- Erik Max Francis && max(a)alcyone.com && http://www.alcyone.com/max/ San Jose, CA, USA && 37 18 N 121 57 W && AIM/Y!M/Skype erikmaxfrancis Did you ever love somebody / Did you ever really care -- Cassandra Wilson |