You got me on the facts there. I am guessing there are probably numerous other fallacies.
I think my points still stand which are: 1) scientists don't "believe" in theories. They find them to be useful constructs for explaining empirical observations and suggesting new hypotheses. As you point out, Einstein's relativity theory did not invalidate all aspects of Newtonian mechanics but turned out to be a better explanation of empirical observations and produced unique hypotheses that have also been supported through controlled, empirical observations. 2) It is not a scientific value to require belief in a particular theory to be accepted into the professional field of science no matter how strongly it may be affirmed by the present crop of scientists. 3) No amount of evidence moves something from a theory to a fact. They are two different categories. Some theories are certainly more well-supported by the existing evidence than others are. Theories explain and organize facts and produce testable hypotheses; they don't become facts. Rick -----Original Message----- From: Paul Brandon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Sunday, February 09, 2003 7:11 PM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences Subject: RE: letters of recommendation and 'belief' in evolution: warning At 5:59 PM -0600 2/9/03, Rick Froman wrote: >Dear Albert: > >I wish that I could recommend you for graduate work in physics but I >cannot in good conscience recommend you for higher study in this >area when you cannot affirm your belief in Newtonian mechanics. >Certainly, you must realize that this theory is based on extensive >experimental research and your doubt of its veracity is evidence >that you do not value the scientific method and indeed do not >ascribe to the values of this discipline. Can you actually believe >that your perspective with regard to a certain event will actually >have any impact on something as determined as the passage of time? >Seriously. Certainly, the weight of the evidence has moved the >status of Newtonian mechanics from a theory to a fact. I am sure you >are aware that your belief places you in disagreement with over 99% >of all physicists. If only you could see your way clear to swearing >an absolute oath of allegiance to Newtonian mechanics, your academic >record certainly suggests you could make a relatively >proficient physicist. Please let me know if you have a change of >heart and I will be happy to endorse your application. Cute, but when did Einstein ever _reject_ Newtonian mechanics? He demonstrated that they applied only to a limited range of phenomena (very low velocities) -- eseentially a special case of relativity. That Newton's laws could be broadened was accepted by far more than 1% of early 20th century physicists. -- * PAUL K. BRANDON [EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Psychology Department 507-389-6217 * * 23 Armstrong Hall Minnesota State University, Mankato * * http://www.mankato.msus.edu/dept/psych/welcome.html * --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
