Re: Name that physicist

On Jan 16, 5:12 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jan 15, 9:36 pm, Michael Helland <mobyd...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jan 15, 3:00 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jan 15, 4:46 pm, Michael Helland <mobyd...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jan 14, 3:43 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
<snip>

"But you don't seriously believe," Einstein protested, "that none but
observable magnitudes must go into a physical theory?"

Oh, I don't think Einstein would have so protested.

According to Heisenberg, he did.

Heisenberg (1972) Physics and Beyond - Encounters and Conversations
Harper Torchbooks, p. 63

"Isn't that precisely what you have done with relativity?" I asked in
some surprise. "After all, you did stress the fact that it is
impermissible to speak of absolute time, simply because absolute time
cannot be observed; that only clock readings, be it in the moving
reference system or the system at rest, are relevant to the
determination of time."

"Possibly I did use this kind of reasoning," Einstein admitted, "but
it is nonsense all the same. Perhaps I could put it more
diplomatically by saying that it may be heuristically useful to keep
in mind what one has actually observed. But on principle, it is quite
wrong to try founding a theory on observable magnitudes alone. In
reality, the very opposite happens. It is the theory which decides
what we can observe."

I don't think I agree with this either.

It's very important to realize that our observations are theory
laden.

I realize that you think so, and that this gives an excuse to dismiss
experimental evidence and just go with "logic". This makes the field
seem more accessible to folks with limited resources.

That isn't really my intention.

Pure empiricism alone does not cut it.

It is no coincidence that Newton and Einstein, the greatest physicists
of all time, were rationalists.

Newton was quite an experimentalist, if you study the history a little
more.

Well of course. But that doesn't mean he only believed what appeared
to his senses.

Rationalism demands we use empirical methods where we can.

But what we learn empirically and validate empirically is not the
entirety of knowledge.

Certainly not. We have oodles of knowledge that is not provided by the
scientific method. However, in science, where the acquisition of
knowledge is via the scientific method, empirical validation is an
indispensable step.

Sure.

Let's put it this way. I don't think a Republican president or a
Democratic president is necessarily a good thing, though I think a few
years of this and a few years of that brings the necessary balance.

Likewise, before Einstein ever had any of his ideas validated, he
probably believed them deeply, enough to pursue their development into
hypotheses that may be tested.

Empirical validation may be an indispensable step.

But what is being validated? The conjectures, the hypotheses, and the
theories.

Those don't simply pop out of thin air for the experimentalists to
test.

They are the products of a theorist's rationality.

As indispensable as empirical tests are, having the ideas to test
seems primary to that.

Again using the evolution analogy... new ideas are like mutations, and
tests are like natural selection. The scientific method is a team
effort between them.

Once the new mutations are out there, the environment naturally
removes the bad ones and keeps the good ones.

The real magic is in the mutations. The people providing those are
less common than the people acting as the selectors. But again, both
are necessary.

But an entirely other way... to the rationalist "is it true?" and "can
I justify its truth?" are two different questions. To the empiricist
they are the same. The empiricist errs because justification is
usually more subjective (does this appeal to my pre-existing beliefs?)
than we would like to admit.

As Schopenhauer reminds us, the bold innovative solutions to problems
often initially appear as paradoxes and contradictions.

That's because we have false assumptions that are standing in the way
of the new truths which are very difficult to see through.


Einstein was a bit more oriented to believe his intuition, and
this did leave him in areas of profound mistake.

Changes in ideas are like mutations in evolution.

The conditions for profound success would seem to require the capacity
for profound mistake.

Of course. I'm not faulting Einstein for making mistakes. You can't be
bold as he was without making mistakes. This doesn't turn the mistakes
into "correct after all".

Indeed.

But we were making a comparison of Einstein's rational methods and
pure empiricism, not the infallibility of their results. (Both methods
are fallible.)

The strength of rationalism over empiricism is, I maintain, that
rationalism contains and applies empiricism where appropriate, but is
not limited entirely to knowledge obtained from the senses.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Dennett / Ruse Tiff Continues
    ... believing that empiricism can detect everything that is real? ... Indeed the meaning of "non-random" is ... to check whether the pattern is random. ... existence rather assumes I, as a human, can observe it? ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Ancient sites and bodily sensations
    ... >> Lady Nina wrote: ... >>> There is yet another thread on rationalism and empiricism that ... Prev by Date: ...
    (uk.religion.pagan)
  • Re: Science and God
    ... something beyond what we observe. ... could have perceived, i.e., empiricism. ... minds, though not at present observing them directly. ... promotes understanding? ...
    (uk.philosophy.humanism)
  • Re: Science and God
    ... something beyond what we observe. ... consistent account of the universe in all aspects (empirical and non- ... could have perceived, i.e., empiricism. ...
    (uk.philosophy.humanism)
  • Re: Ma and Pa
    ... I am not a slave to empiricism. ... My parents were both of the same species - human. ... found that rationalism is the most reliable lifeway. ...
    (talk.origins)