On Sun, 2 Jan 2005, Jon Johanning wrote:
> OK, let's try it this way. For a long time before human beings existed, the
> moon orbited the earth, and the earth and the other planets orbited the sun
> in basically the same way they do now -- right? Since Newton, we have been
> able to describe this behavior mathematically using his law of gravitation:
> the force by which two masses attract each other is proportional to the
> product of their masses divided by the square of the distance between them --
> right? So even before human beings existed, *these masses behaved according
> to Newton's Law.*
A significant error here: it is not correct to claim that masses behave according to Newton's laws! Far from the speed of light, they're more or less approximately correct; however, as Einstein argued and research has demonstrated, Newton's view of the universe and his mathematical models are--to put it bluntly--wrong.
I'm not just nitpicking about this; Jon's mistake here highlights an important philosophical point. At one point in time, yes, humans contended that masses moved according to Newton's laws. However, rather than appreciating that these laws were an incomplete human attempt to understand the patterns at work, Jon assumed that they were the final and unassailable mathematical model of the patterns. --"Okay, but now, we've corrected Newton's mistakes, and we've got it right!" Keep in mind that this was the attitude most physicists had in the 19th century about Newton. --And just as Newton's supposedly immutable and universal laws were superceded by Einstein's work, physicists in the future will supercede Einstein's laws of gravitation.
This is what I love about science: anything held dear at one point in time can be replaced at some point in the future. Given this mutability of science over time, Jon's claim is indefensible. Which "laws" produced by scientists do we say correctly represent the objects of study--Newton? Einstein? A physicist 200 years from now? 500 years from now? (Think how physics has changed since 1500!)
--A scientific law is a contingent understanding of the world that is almost certain to be replaced in the future; it is not an immutable, unchanging characteristic of the universe that existed before humans.
(Arguing that some laws existed prior to humans is precisely analogous to arguing that God existed prior to humans believing in Her. Jon's argument is theological through and through.)
> In short, I think people who want to get involved in this discussion need to
> do a little homework first.
Obviously I agree!
Miles