Re: Galactic pancake mystery solved

Ernie Wright wrote:
> There's something deep in this about the nature of scientific induction.
> We start with discrepant facts (Brahe), find a curve fit (Kepler), build
> a theory that accounts for the fit (Newton), then search for new facts
> capable of disproving the theory. If you remove the curve fit (or the
> pattern recognition, call it what you like) from this process, you have
> no way to get from observation to theory construction. Even though it
> doesn't look very scientific in isolation, it's a necessary step. You
> can't leap over it, from Brahe to Newton. You need a Kepler. You need
> a Linnaeus to get to Darwin, a Mendeleev to get to Moseley and Pauling.

Ernie, my most earnest thanks from another (rare) person who recognizes
the pioneering contributions of Moseley.

Brian Tung <brian@xxxxxxx>
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.txt
.