> 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 and universal laws were superceded by Einstein's work, physicists in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.
Aw, Miles -- give me some credit for intelligence and a basic knowledge of science, why don't ya? The reason I mentioned Newton's Law of Gravitation was not that I am ignorant of Big Al the Curly-Haired and his world-renowned theories of relativity. It's because I was talking about the solar system, and general relativity is of no relevance to a region that small. In fact, NASA uses Newton's physics to put its satellites, rovers, and other cute thingies wherever it wants, and if Newton is good enough for NASA, he's good enough for me! Relativity becomes relevant when you're talking about huge distances, very fast velocities, and huge masses, like black holes. This is similar to quantum theory, which is not relevant to objects roughly on our scale, but is when you get to very small regions.
But if you want to substitute ol' One-Mug for Sir Isaac in the argument I gave, be my guest. It doesn't change the argument a bit.
At any rate, if you recognize that Einstein's theories are an improvement in some sense over Newton's, you are agreeing with me that the change from one scientific theory to another is not completely random and arbitrary, as some people think, but is in fact some kind of progress. The philosophical challenge is to account for just *how* it is progress -- a very large topic in philosophy of science.
> (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.)
Absolutely. Why, the Holy Father called me up just the other day to chat about my famous theological theses. -- Not!
Jon Johanning // jjohanning at igc.org __________________________ When I was a little boy, I had but a little wit, 'Tis a long time ago, and I have no more yet; Nor ever ever shall, until that I die, For the longer I live the more fool am I. -- Wit and Mirth, an Antidote against Melancholy (1684)