"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 15 Mar 2010 12:56 ::::: sometimes innovations have= to come from radically different ::::: approaches, because current paradigmat= ic thinking has painted ::::: itself into a corner. :: 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. : JimboCat <103134.3516(a)compuserve.com> : 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. The point is that Copernicus knew his epicycles backwards and forewards. Tue is supposing that he's better off not knowing quantum mechanics in trying to replace it with something more psychologically satisfying. The other main example of something reworked largely for philosophical reasons is general relativity. Was there really a reason not to treat gravity as a force, and adopt the principle of equivalance? Not... really. He wasn't developing it in order to explain Mercury for example (though it was just as well that it did). However, Einsstein kn ew his newtonian physics backwards and forewards. And sideways too. Wayne Throop throopw(a)sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
From: JimboCat on 15 Mar 2010 15:05
On Mar 15, 12:56 pm, thro...(a)sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote: > ::::: sometimes innovations have= to come from radically different > ::::: approaches, because current paradigmat= ic thinking has painted > ::::: itself into a corner. > > :: 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. > > : JimboCat <103134.3...(a)compuserve.com> > : For large values of "zero", of course <g>. > > The point is that Copernicus knew his epicycles backwards and forewards. Indeed it is, and I should have made that point more clearly. Jim Deutch (JimboCat) -- "Slogan of the security guards at the sewage-treatment plant: 'Waste is a terrible thing to mind'" [R H Draney] |