True enough, Boris, that Einstein had in hand data produced by earlier
"scientists" -- the results of their observations and experiments. And then he
did
his famous "thought experiments" of 1905 -- e.g. he imagined traveling at the
speed of light. This led him to a theory that would organize and "account for"
all that disparate data he had inherited.
But, as William can tell you, the classic notion of "science" calls for that
new theory then to be tested by what's called "the scientifc method" -- one
requirement of which calls for experiments to test "predictions" of the theory.
So, because Einstein's work in Basel wasn't tested for years, by the strict
notion of scientific method the work should not be accepted as "science". But
most of us feel it's nonsense for purists to suggest one of the two or three
most famous moments in physics should be called "not science". All I meant to
do was to call into doubt the clarity the notions most of us have behind even a
very common word like 'science' -- and like 'art'.
**************
Need a new
ride? Check out the largest site for U.S. used car listings at AOL Autos.
(http://autos.aol.com/used?NCID=aolcmp00300000002851)
