"Causality" or "determinism"?
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: ARINDAM BANERJEE, THE greatest cuckoo of all time
Next: How is SR this probability problem explained?
From: Michael Stemper on 10 Mar 2010 13:56 In article <f9a6854c-0e11-4188-a64e-9ce6aa8bc5bc(a)q15g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>, Jenny <yuancur(a)gmail.com> writes: >On Mar 9, 11:25=A0am, thro...(a)sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote: >> : Jenny <yuan...(a)gmail.com> >> : How about this for a Doctor of Medicine? >... ... >> : Since he was not taken seriously at the time, his achievements were >> : overlooked and credit was given to James Joule. =A0He almost committed >> : suicide after he discovered this fact. > >> Two problems with this example in the upthread context. =A0First, it's >> not a paradigm-changing revolution. =A0It augmented rather than replaced. >> Second, though he didn't know the theory backwards and forwards, he >> consulted experts who did, and actually paid attention to them. > >In some geometries there are no true parallels. Irrelevant. We're talking abut thermodynamics, not geometry. >He wrote to the experts, most ignored him and some even ridiculed him, >after all he wasn't even properly trained. The one who responded told >him that he was wrong and to go away and do the experiment - That's how science works. If you have a theory, you do experiments to test it. > - but that >guy obviously didn't take the idea seriously enough to do it for >himself. So what? Was this correspondent supposed to take the idea more seriously THAN THE GUY WHO CAME UP WITH IT? -- Michael F. Stemper #include <Standard_Disclaimer> This email is to be read by its intended recipient only. Any other party reading is required by the EULA to send me $500.00.
From: Michael Stemper on 10 Mar 2010 14:00 In article <ff610b1d-100f-415a-b42f-f9d2ae1e6bb2(a)k17g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, Jenny <yuancur(a)gmail.com> writes: >On Mar 9, 1:23=A0pm, Erik Max Francis <m...(a)alcyone.com> wrote: >> Jenny wrote: >> First, you never named the guy, but it's clear you're talking about >> Julius Robert von Mayer, and it's also clear from googling that you got >> the text you quoted from Wikipedia -- so not a great start. =A0Second, th= >I was just making the point that "outsiders" (i.e untrained amateurs) >can come up with good science. You make that same point yourself >below, Nobody has denied that in this thread. What has been denied is that theories are overthrown because "outsiders" don't understand them. -- Michael F. Stemper #include <Standard_Disclaimer> This email is to be read by its intended recipient only. Any other party reading is required by the EULA to send me $500.00.
From: Darwin123 on 10 Mar 2010 20:39 On Mar 10, 1:45 pm, mstem...(a)walkabout.empros.com (Michael Stemper) wrote: > In article <51edfb52-7142-4b9b-aa58-4e6e30415...(a)u9g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, Jenny <yuan...(a)gmail.com> writes: > > >On Mar 7, 6:14=A0pm, 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. > > >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. > > No, these were all cases where new experimental evidence showed that > the existing theories had flaws. Nothing to do with "current paradigmatic > thinking" painting itself into a corner. Galileo may have disagreed with you. He thought the raw empiricism of Aristotle was flawed. He thought the concept of idealization developed by Plato was a better guide to investigation. His argument concerning why an objects fall is independent of weight started with an interesting observation. Suppose you drop two separate objects with the same weight. They should fall at the same speed. Now chain them together. You now have a composite object that is twice the weight of each separate object. Drop it. Does it drop at twice the speed? According to Aristotle, it should. I get your point. Experimentation provides the final criterion for reality. However, one needs to chose a rational framework before one sets up the experiment. Guided empiricism rules. Raw empiricism is bad for science. One needs a sanity filter. If you don't believe it, start reading some of the crankier posts on the scientific forums. Or talk to a "homeopathic physician". Or call a psychic hot line.
From: JimboCat on 15 Mar 2010 10:01 On Mar 7, 9:25 pm, Erik Max Francis <m...(a)alcyone.com> wrote: > 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. For large values of "zero", of course <g>. The only good one I can come up with (and Tue apparently can't) is the heliocentric model of the solar system. Epicycles were complicated. Although they were very effective in "saving the phenomena" (that is, in matching the calculation results to observation) they were weird and unexplained: they caused philosophical discomfort. Copernicus hesitated to publish until he was on his deathbed because the heliocentric theory, while philosophically more comfortable, was spiritually unsatisfactory (to the powers of the Church, at least: I don't know how he felt personally). But what is more important is that it did not fit the facts any better than the geocentric theory. Not until Kepler introduced elliptical orbits three-quarters of a centurty later did the heliocentric theory become better philosophically AND factually than the Ptolemaic epicycles. Nevertheless, while heliocentrism turned out to be correct, Tue Sorensen is no Copernicus. For one thing, the heliocentric theory was not, by any means, original with Copernicus. He wasn't coming up with some sort of brand-new thinking-outside-the-box word salad. For another, in the fifteenth century science was a much different enterprise than it is today. Copernicus is the exception that proves the rule: overthrowing an established paradigm based only on philosophy basically never happens in science. Jim Deutch (JimboCat) -- "I'm sorry if the plasticity and applicability of my conceptual apparatus overwhelms your limited intellect." [Tue Sorensen]
From: Mike Ash on 15 Mar 2010 11:28
In article <f161e438-e36f-4839-aa36-35b964f766b3(a)t41g2000yqt.googlegroups.com>, JimboCat <103134.3516(a)compuserve.com> wrote: > On Mar 7, 9:25�pm, Erik Max Francis <m...(a)alcyone.com> wrote: > > 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. > > For large values of "zero", of course <g>. > > The only good one I can come up with (and Tue apparently can't) is the > heliocentric model of the solar system. Epicycles were complicated. > Although they were very effective in "saving the phenomena" (that is, > in matching the calculation results to observation) they were weird > and unexplained: they caused philosophical discomfort. > > Copernicus hesitated to publish until he was on his deathbed because > the heliocentric theory, while philosophically more comfortable, was > spiritually unsatisfactory (to the powers of the Church, at least: I > don't know how he felt personally). But what is more important is that > it did not fit the facts any better than the geocentric theory. Not > until Kepler introduced elliptical orbits three-quarters of a centurty > later did the heliocentric theory become better philosophically AND > factually than the Ptolemaic epicycles. > > Nevertheless, while heliocentrism turned out to be correct, Tue > Sorensen is no Copernicus. For one thing, the heliocentric theory was > not, by any means, original with Copernicus. He wasn't coming up with > some sort of brand-new thinking-outside-the-box word salad. For > another, in the fifteenth century science was a much different > enterprise than it is today. Copernicus is the exception that proves > the rule: overthrowing an established paradigm based only on > philosophy basically never happens in science. More to the point, both Copernicus and Kepler were extremely well-versed in the state of the art of their day. Did they come up with a radical new approach to the science in question? Undoubtedly. Did they do it thanks to ignorance of the established order? Most certainly not. -- Mike Ash Radio Free Earth Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon |