Re: Nature of science [was: Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?]

[Dan Minette]

- Original Message - 
From: "Robert J. Chassell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2004 11:33 AM
Subject: Nature of science [was: Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?]


> Earlier I wrote
>
> > (In its fundamentals, science is a form of transcultural
communication
>...
>
> > Your enemy simply ignores you, if you are lucky, which enables
> > him to change his mind later, or says you are a fraud.  That is
> > why `paradigm shifting' ideas consume at least a generation.)
>
> "Dan Minette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> responded
>
> We differ significantly here.  As a counter example, Shelly
> Glashow was almost laughed off the stage for proposing Electroweak
> at a conference.  A year later, almost everyone agreed that he was
> right.  Within a few years it was called "The Standard Model."
>
> I don't understand what you mean:  are you suggesting that many
> physicists are better that I suggested?  If so, that is good.

Yes.  The reason for this is that people remain unconvinced by new theories
only so long as there is no clear advantage in using the new system.  Take
for example the hundred or so years from the advent of the Copernican
system to its general acceptance.  What few people realize is that the
Copernican system had epicycles too; just one fewer than the earth centered
universe.  There wasn't a clear advantage until the work of Galileo and
Kepler.

In the example I gave, weak neutral currents were a prediction of the
Electroweak theory.  At the time Glashow was laughed at, they had not been
observed.  The only possible explaination for this was the existance of
another quark, which also had not been observed.

Within a year, both were found, validating the theory.
So, physics has the tremendous advantage in that its predictions are often
falsifiable.

Dan M.



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Nature of science [was: Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?]

[Robert J. Chassell]

Earlier I wrote

> (In its fundamentals, science is a form of transcultural communication
   ...

> Your enemy simply ignores you, if you are lucky, which enables
> him to change his mind later, or says you are a fraud.  That is
> why `paradigm shifting' ideas consume at least a generation.)

"Dan Minette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> responded

We differ significantly here.  As a counter example, Shelly
Glashow was almost laughed off the stage for proposing Electroweak
at a conference.  A year later, almost everyone agreed that he was
right.  Within a few years it was called "The Standard Model."

I don't understand what you mean:  are you suggesting that many
physicists are better that I suggested?  If so, that is good.

What I am trying to say is that even in tough circumstances, where
`authorities' are authoritarian and do not change their minds,
students (or at least some of them) will be more flexible.

I may be wrong about students, but if not, my claim is that as a form
of persuasion, science is robust.  Other forms of persuasion fail in
various areas: an appeal to authority fails when the authority lacks
respect.  An appeal to future benefits fails when the future arrives
but the benefits do not (and this failure can be communicated to
others).  An appeal to a metaphorical similarity fails when the
application of the metaphor apears faulty.

-- 
Robert J. Chassell Rattlesnake Enterprises
http://www.rattlesnake.com  GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8
http://www.teak.cc [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l