In Despair of Folly (Page 2)

BlueShirt1
BlueShirt1: Now, if there have been 300 (say) theories of gravity, all of which are logically incompatible with one another, the replacement of one theory by another does not represent a process of "self-correction".

Instrumental efficacy notwithstanding, what it represents is not incorrect theories being replaced by CORRECT theories. What it represents, rather, is one false theory being replaced by another false theory, being replaced by another false theory . . .

. . . ad infinitum
(Edited by BlueShirt1)
2 years ago Report
0
MJ59
MJ59: But at least they're having a go!
2 years ago Report
2
BelgianStrider
BelgianStrider: A: I don't know those of Aristotle neither those of Descartes.
B: Concening gravity by Newton it is seen as a Force explained by the attraction of masses versus the square of their distances. The mathematical description of that force is correct and do clearly valable predictions.
Why masses are attracted Newton never could explain as his "space time continuum" is straight like the eucledian 3D space description.Ok, he did not had the notion of "space time continuum" that time either.
Einstein explains the "attraction" of masses with the curvatures in that "space time continuum" and that does explain the "force" observed.
So it did not discredit the Newtonian model it refines it.
Sorry but every phycisist will tell you that.
(Edited by BelgianStrider)
2 years ago Report
0
BelgianStrider
BelgianStrider: The theory of aether is false and complete invalid, and quite many of the ancient greco-roman "scientific" theories, has been debunked.
The most: because different simultaneous phenomenons had to be explained by different models.
Though on the other hand: the theory of the flat earth replacing the old greco-roman of the spheric one (by biblical reasons introduced" has been debunked and replace by that of the ancient greeks the spheric heliocentric one.

What is valid stays valid till completely debunked.

Again I said the Newtonian model is quite valid "in our slow motion world". Hurling with more than 4000km/hr to the moon is still slow...

2 years ago Report
0
BelgianStrider
BelgianStrider: Again astronomers saw weird phenomenons that can not be explained by Einstein's model.
Does it makes it invalid with what we know?
What is following you the most logic conclusion?

2 years ago Report
0
BelgianStrider
BelgianStrider: What we know is true ; is true with the limitation of our knowledge.

Hoping to get the ultimate truth -like some deitist claim to have- is utopic.

Science also can admit without shame "we don't know" ...
Any (fanatical) deitist ever heard admitting that???

Again if someone claims science is the only tool to get the complete truth he is fanatically utopist ...

Nobody can deny "science" seems to be more trustworthy Completely correct? No and mostly can not be as we will often work with simpler models that we can handle. Though the appoach is "good enough" till the model can be refined by better tools in our possession.

(Edited by BelgianStrider)
2 years ago Report
0
BelgianStrider
BelgianStrider: To end I don't see why a theory is "de facto" false and will be replaced by another "false" theory.

You also should not limit youself to the examples like gravity or aether or any other theory that clearly had incorrrect basements.

Many "old" theories are still valid till now in their "context"
You will never be able to use a Newtonian model, and hardly that of Einstein in Quantum Mechanics i.e.
2 years ago Report
0
BelgianStrider
BelgianStrider: Valid = assumable - acceptable with our actual knowledge and/or workable

If you do not agree with that, you will have to claim Quantum Mechanics is a "false invalid theory" and you better stop using your electronic devices...
(Edited by BelgianStrider)
2 years ago Report
0
BlueShirt1
BlueShirt1: "Einstein explains the "attraction" of masses with the curvatures in that "space time continuum" and that does explain the "force" observed. So it did not discredit the Newtonian model it refines it. Sorry but every phycisist will tell you that." - Belgian



Sorry, but every physicist will NOT tell you that. David Bohm, one of the greatest physicists of the 20th century, has the following to say on the matter . . .


"To present such new ideas without relating them properly to previously held ideas gives the wrong impression that the theory of relativity is merely at a culminating point of earlier developments and does not properly bring out the fact that this theory is on a radically new line that contradicts Newtonian concepts in the very same step in which it extends physical law in new directions, and into hitherto unexpected new domains"
- David Bohm, "The Special Theory of Relativity", preface, page xvi

"A theory that has real predictive content must then, as it were, "stick its neck out". But if it does this it is likely in time to "have its neck chopped off". Indeed, this is what did happen eventually to a great many theories such as Newtonian mechanics, which were confirmed up to a point but then shown to be false."
- David Bohm, "The Special Theory of Relativity", pp 149-150

"It should be recalled that at the end of the nineteenth century, physicists widely believed that classical physics gave the general outlines of a complete mechanical explanation of the universe. Since then, relativity and quantum mechanics have overturned such notions altogether . . . Classical physics was swept aside and overturned."
- David Bohm, "On the Subjectivity and Objectivity of Knowledge"




If David Bohm is to be trusted, then, it is not the case--as you claim--that Einstein's theory of gravity "refined" (your word) Newtonian classical physics. Rather, it "contradicts" (Bohm's word) Newton's theory, it shows Newton's theory to be "false", it "swept aside and overturned" Newton's theory.

In short, it DISCREDITS Newtonian theory.

2 years ago Report
0
BlueShirt1
BlueShirt1: "Again astronomers saw weird phenomenons that can not be explained by Einstein's model.
Does it makes it invalid with what we know?" - Belgian



Apparently many scientists DO feel that Einstein's theory is "invalid". David Bohm again . . .


"For example, there is even now an appreciable number of scientists who are inclined to suspect that the theory of relativity (both special and general) may be wrong when applied in the domain of very small distances (much less than the presumed size of the "elementary" particle). Besides, there seem to be reasons for to suspect that relativity may not be adequate when applied to extremely large distances of the order of the presumed "size" of the universe (out to where the "red shift" becomes appreciable)."

- David Bohm, "The Special Theory of Relativity", page 132
2 years ago Report
0
BlueShirt1
BlueShirt1: "If you do not agree with that, you will have to claim Quantum Mechanics is a "false invalid theory" and you better stop using your electronic devices..." - Belgian


Another non-sequitur, I'm afraid.

As has already been pointed out, it is well known that accurate predictions can be derived from false theories. Theories known to be false can still be instrumentally efficacious; false theories WORK too.

Ptolemaic geocentric cosmology (static Earth), for example, is now universally regarded as a false theory, It can still be used perfectly well for purposes of navigation, say. You could navigate your way to Australia using it.


To paraphrase your own (invalid) argument above . .

"If you think Ptolemaic cosmology is a false theory, you'd better stop using it to navigate."

Er, no.
(Edited by BlueShirt1)
2 years ago Report
0
BelgianStrider
BelgianStrider: In my opinion David Bohm is quite radical in his opinion to say those are invalid theories, even false. Point.
He just forgets a little point, the context of its use.
Nobody will ever state the Newtonian model is completely invalid, the one who claims that is incorrect in my opinion and just forget one little tiny thing "the context of slow motion".

Ptolemaic concentric earth model is false in the view of "space". The problem was the variable speed that had to be taking in account for the sun and the concept of the equant was controversial. What brought some guy called Copernicus to a better planetary model and with Keppler's laws to a better predictable and valid theory.
It also explains in a better way the movements of the stellar objects. It did not change at all the observed movements.
Ptolemaic concept of a spheric earth is correct, thus valid.

In those both contexts navigation on earth with those observations is still expoitable till now.
(Edited by BelgianStrider)
2 years ago Report
0
BelgianStrider
BelgianStrider: Though I nowadays prefer to use GPS (based on Quantum Mechanics and Einstein's theory) than a sextant. Just for the purpose for ease of use
2 years ago Report
0
BelgianStrider
BelgianStrider: BTW note that David also clearly states that both theories of relativity seem not to concord anymore in the context of the "extreme small" neither in that of the "extreme large". Did you notice the concept of contexts when it seems not to be applicable anymore?
Does that mean it is not valid in the "not extreme small" and "not extreme large"?

(Edited by BelgianStrider)
2 years ago Report
0
BelgianStrider
BelgianStrider: I pertain to state: total truth is utopic with the means-tools and the knowledge we posses till now.
I even doubt "mankind" ever will reach that "knowledge".
2 years ago Report
0
MJ59
MJ59: Don't be ridiculous you pair!!
Any logical rational thinker knows what you say is all caca and pseudoscience you nitwit evo chumps!!!

Abiogenesis and macroevolution are IMPOSSIBLE, you weren;t there to see them!!
(Edited by MJ59)
2 years ago Report
1
BelgianStrider
BelgianStrider:

that is at last the most intelligent thing I read
2 years ago Report
0
BelgianStrider
2 years ago Report
0
BlueShirt1
BlueShirt1: "BTW note that David also clearly states that both theories of relativity seem not to concord anymore in the context of the "extreme small" neither in that of the "extreme large". Did you notice the concept of contexts when it seems not to be applicable anymore?
Does that mean it is not valid in the "not extreme small" and "not extreme large"?" - Belgian



If you insist on using the word "valid" then what we can say is this:

Newton's theory is valid in exactly the same sense that the theory "All birds are flightless" is valid.

In other words, if you stick to situations where either theory yields only accurate predictions, you will be provided with . . . surprise surprise . . . nothing but accurate predictions.

If you stick to relatively slow-moving medium-sized objects, then Newton's theory will yield nothing but accurate predictions.

Similarly, if you stick to inland Antarctica in the middle of winter, your bird theory will do likewise.


That said, is either theory true? Of course not. Ask any logician. Both theories are uncontroversially assigned a truth-value of "false".




"It may seem tempting to say that later theories simply provide localized readjustments and that the old theories continue to hold good provided only that we suitably restrict their domains of purported validity. On such a view, it is tempting to say: "Einstein's theory does not replace Newton's; it does not actually disagree with Newton's at all but simply sets limits to the the region of phenomena (large-scale, slow-moving objects) where Newton's theory works perfectly well". Such temptations must be resisted. To yield to them is like saying that "All swans are white" is true all right; we just have to be cautious about its domain limitation and take care not to apply it to Australia. This sort of position comes down, in the final analysis, to the unhelpful truism that a theory works where a theory works."

-- Nicholas Rescher, "The Limits of Science", p69
(Edited by BlueShirt1)
2 years ago Report
0
BlueShirt1
BlueShirt1: What you continue to do is to focus on the predictions which can be derived from a theory, ignoring entirely the conceptual content of the theories in question.

Given that Newton and Einstein's respective theories contain concepts which are wildly at odds with one another, indeed logically incompatible, then IF one theory is true, the other MUST be false.

My only misgiving with David Bohm's remarks is that he seems a little naive about developments in the philosophy of science; his tone is largely Popperian (after Karl Popper) in nature.

Bohm tells us flat out that Newton's theory is false.

Notice what I'm saying is a little different. I'm saying IF Einstein's theory is true THEN Newton's theory must be false (and vice versa). The two are logically incompatible.
2 years ago Report
0
BlueShirt1
BlueShirt1: "Ptolemaic concentric earth model is false in the view of "space"." - Begian.


Fine! You assign a value of false to the Ptolemaic theory. So do I. So does every physicist I'm aware of.

And why do we do so? Because (by modern lights) it is conceptually muddled. It gets things the wrong way round.

But you refuse to assign a value of false to Newton's theory? This is inconsistency on your part.

Newton's theory is also (by modern lights) conceptually muddled.

Newton tells us gravity is an attractive force; modern theory tells us it is not.

Newton tells us gravity acts instantaneously; modern theory tells us it does not.

Newton tells us space and time are absolute; modern theory tells us space and time, as traditionally conceived, do not exist!

etc., etc.


There could be no clearer contradictions.
(Edited by BlueShirt1)
2 years ago Report
0
BlueShirt1
BlueShirt1: Oh, and

2 years ago Report
0
BlueShirt1
BlueShirt1: Albert Einstein himself--always enormously respectful towards Newton-- says the following . . .


"We can indeed see from Newton's formulation of it that the concept of absolute space, which comprised that of absolute rest, made him feel uncomfortable; he realized that there seemed to be nothing in experience corresponding to this last concept. He was also not quite comfortable about the introduction of forces operating at a distance. But the tremendous practical success of his doctrines may well have prevented him and the physicists of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries from recognizing the fictitious character of the foundations of his system."

- "On the Methods of Theoretical Physics", Albert Einstein



Precisely what I've been saying. The "tremendous practical success" (c.f. "instrumental efficacy" ) of Newton's theory is not in dispute.

But the "fictitious character of the foundations of his system" . . .

If that doesn't mean "false" I'm a monkey's uncle.
2 years ago Report
0
BlueShirt1
BlueShirt1: "But at least they're having a go!" - MJ59


Lest anyone mistake this for an anti-science rant (it isn't) . . .


"The errors of great men are venerable because they are more fruitful then the truths of little men."

- Nietzsche
2 years ago Report
0
BlueShirt1
BlueShirt1: "What has to be done with dogamtic indoctrinating (theological) ideas based on pure falacies in your opinion?" - Belgian


I think they should be exposed, regardless of whether these myths are of a more theistic or scientistic nature.

Exactly what I've been trying to do here.

How about you?

Science has its fair share of dogma and indoctrination too, ya know.
(Edited by BlueShirt1)
2 years ago Report
0