> On 15 Nov 2019, at 03:17, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 11/14/2019 5:48 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: >> >> >> On Thursday, November 14, 2019 at 5:34:02 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: >> >> >> On 11/14/2019 4:20 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: >>> Newton is considered superior, not just because his theory was more >>> accurate, but because it had a universal application. The greatest >>> importance of Newton was that he broke the idea that the heavens went by >>> different rules than the Earth. So "truth" per se is not the distinction. >>> As Bill can tell you astronomers have no problem with regarding the Earth >>> as stationary and the Sun going around it. But they use Newton's equations >>> to determine how it goes. It's convenience...not truth. >>> >>> Bill's failing, as I recall, was the belief and insistence that he's always >>> right. No astronomer of sound mind would regard the Earth as stationary and >>> the Sun going around it. AG >> >> Not at all. They do it all the time, because when it comes to aiming your >> telescope you do it relative to the Earth, not the Sun. >> >> Brent >> >> I was thinking of calculating the orbit of a planet. For stars apparently >> fixed on the celestial sphere, Earth centered calculations are convenient. AG > > Which is the point. There is no "true" center of the solar system, there are > just more and less convenient coordinate systems in which to calculate > things. So you need to ask yourself what do you mean when you say it is more > true that the Sun is the center of the solar system and the Earth orbits the > Sun than the other way around? If you're honest you will conclude that you > mean it is easier to make good estimates of the future in that coordinate > system. Why is Einstein's gravity "truer" than Newton's. Why is the quantum > atom better than the Bohr atom? Why is Darwinian theory better than > Lamarckian. The reason one scientific theory is better than another is three > dimensional: > > 1. It gives more accurate predictions where the theories overlap and no > emprically false ones. > 2. It has a wider domain of application. It applies in more places or over a > bigger range of parameters. > 3. It is consilient with our other best theories. So it reduces the number > of different things we must understand as independent. > > A theory that is better on all three dimensions, we regard as truer. Not > the other way around: It is not the case that we judge it better because it's > truer, because we don't, and can't, know where the truth is.
Complete agreement here. Good post. I apply this to all domain, including theology where such view are judged heretical by people who have enforced their theory by brutal force (the worst argument per authority!). Bruno > > Brent > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/715f8739-ff00-d081-be84-0d4523efca7c%40verizon.net > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/715f8739-ff00-d081-be84-0d4523efca7c%40verizon.net?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/B8A5A7EE-132A-498B-9BF1-E41A097E7AE6%40ulb.ac.be.
