On Oct 5, 2008, at 6:06 PM, Jim Devine wrote:
In science, no general framework of understanding can or should be
rejected -- no matter how numerous the anomalies are -- if there's not
an alternative framework to replace it. Better to have a first
approximation than no approximation at all. It's clear that Ptolemaic
astronomic models, for example, had a lot of anomalies, but they
served the purposes that people used them for well enough. As I
understand it, there was no point in rejecting them until there was a
clearly superior alternative -- and the Copernican system didn't quite
fill the bill until Kepler amended it.
The word 'approximation' has Platonic connotations that make me ill at
ease, but I want to avoid this iteration of our Phil of Science
discussions ;-), so instead let me offer a recent new thesis that I
reaed about in astrophysics: a couple of physicists have proposed a
theory that does away with "dark energy" (a requirement in the
"standard" model) but what that entails is the notion that the earth
lies at the centre of a depression (I am quoting from memory, here) in
the universe that leads to various unique characteristics... so, the
earth may be the centre of the universe after all ;-). Link and real
information when I find it again...
--ravi
--
Support something better than yourself ;-)
PeTA => http://peta.org/
Greenpeace => http://greenpeace.org/
If you have nothing better to read: http://platosbeard.org/
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
