Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science

From: Lester Zick (lesterDELzick_at_worldnet.att.net)
Date: 03/10/05 

Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 16:12:30 GMT

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 10:31:02 -0600, Albert Wagner
<albertwagner@cox.net> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:

>robert j. kolker wrote:
>>
>> Albert Wagner wrote:
>>
>>> That's all a pretty pitiful defense of a Theory that is obviously on
>>> it last legs. Standard Theory is a Rube Goldberg contraption held
>>> together with chewing gum, paper clips and Faith.
>>
>> 1. GTR has served and still serves us well. The GPS system is a
>> practical application.
>
>Newtonian physics also has served and still serves us well. Yet
>Newton had to posit a mysterious attractive force called
>'gravity'. The fact that bad theories can serve well for many
>phenomena is no justification for clinging blindly to the status quo.
>
>> 2. The issue of matter not detected electromagnetically has not lead to
>> a flat out contradiction with experiment. At present it is an ad-hoc
>> hypothesis which may yet be redeemed. Work is being done in that directon.
>
>The same can be said for psychic phenomena.
>
>> 3. There is no better theory of gravitation at hand, so whatever ad hoc
>> patches are required will be made.
>
>Yes, there is a better theory for gravity at hand. Standard
>Theory is *nothing but* ad hoc patches.
>
>> GTR may have a hole in it, but it is
>> not outright false, in the sameway the Newtonian gravitation is.
>
>You can't prove either one true or false. Both are pure fabrication.
>
>> What
>> would kill all the relativity theories and any theories based on them
>> dead as a doornail is faster than light transmission of information or
>> transport of matter. There is no cure for that. That is a theory killer.
>
>Yes. That would account for the frantic search for patches to
>bandage up 'entanglement'.
>
>> Even after the anomalous motion of Mercury was known (since about 1875)
>> Newtonian Gravitation was still used.
>
>There is no such thing as Newtonian Gravitation. There never was.
> An attractive force called gravitation was merely hypothesized
>and named by Newton. No such force has ever been empirically
>explained. When cornered, amateur physicists like you, invite
>you jump from a high building as proof that their theories are
>true, when all such jumping does is prove that bodies
>mysteriously grow closer together. But Neanderthals knew that much.
>
>> In fact several ad hoc explantions
>> for the anomouls precession of the perihelia were proposed. They were
>> never redeemed empirically. When a better theory of gravitation was
>> acheived without the ad hocary, Newtonin Gravitation was demoted from a
>> fundemental theory to a heuristic.
>
>Your 'better' theory is no closer than Newton was to explanation.
>
>> The same fate may yet befall GTR.
>> However, the matter is not settled yet. Furhter work on
>> super-symmetric-partner particles may yet resolved the matter(sic!)
>
>And wise scientists and laypersons are already questioning the
>endless proliferation of invented particles and forces for which
>no explanation can be given, other than: "It was needed to make
>the math work."

You're really cooking with gas in this subthread, Albert. Good work.

Regards - Lester

Relevant Pages