On 5/7/2012 12:29 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 07.05.2012 20:11 meekerdb said the following:
On 5/7/2012 10:42 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 07.05.2012 04:17 meekerdb said the following:
On 5/6/2012 5:47 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On May 6, 4:06 pm, meekerdb<meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:

Newton, Boyle, Tyndall, Descarte, Laplace,
Kepler,...none of them were from the universities, which were
dominated by theology.
All of them were still theological thinkers though,

Theological in that the concerned themselves with fundamentals and god

(although Laplace famously said he had no need of that hypothesis), but
all unconventional. Descarte was on the index of prohibited books until
the index was abandoned in 1962. Newton was an Aryan heretic.

The statement of Laplace is a part of the story when Newton called in
God to preserve the stability of the Sun system. Two quotes from
Feyerabend

“Laplace showed a century later, that the planetary system did not fall
apart but oscillated with a very large period. ‘I do not need this
hypothesis’, he said, when Napoleon asked him about the need for a
divine being.”

Napoleon was not asking about the stability of the solar system. He had
not even read Laplace's book.


“But this was not yet the end of matter. … A precise calculation would
have given infinities. … But this meant that Newton’s theory gave
correct results only when used in an ad hoc way.”

Where has Feyerbrand written this? Is he claiming that the solar system
cannot be stable within Newton's theory? Does he think GR is needed
(NASA doesn't)?

This is a quote from Tyranny of Science

http://blog.rudnyi.ru/2012/04/god-as-a-cosmic-operator.html

He is really saying that using Laplaces method of series, taking the limit of the series would have given infinities. He recognizes that Poincare showed how the solar system is stable within Newtonian physics. So it is not the case "that Newton's theory gave correct results only when used in an ad hoc way."

Brent


Feyerbrand claims that the creation of knowledge does not happen according to so called scientific method

From Wikipedia "The Oxford English Dictionary says that scientific method is: "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."

As I read him, Feyerbrand does not deny this general outline, he just notes that scientists do not always abandon a theory because of one or a few contrary observations. They know that observations and calculations have been in error.

Brent
"Nobody believes a theory, except the guy who thought of it.
Everybody believes an experiment, except the guy who did it."
         --- Leon Lederman on physics



Feyerbrand does not care by himself, whether Solar system is stable or not, this is not his business. He justs comments on how the development of science has happened according to historical facts.

Evgenii


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to