Tim Shearon wrote: > Awfully early on a Saturday for this. :) Tough going at any time. -:)
> Allen Esterson asked: "Does not the superseding of Newtonian mechanics > and theory of gravitation by Einsteinian relativity theory provide an > illustration that science is not *inherently* circular?" > [...] > Science doesn't have inherent characteristics except those imposed > in the inherent limitations of the participants... Assuming, thinking in > realms like systems theory, that the theoreticians are sufficiently large >and/or develop sufficient cognitive advantage, the resultant product > itself could easily be argued to rise above any such limitations of fixed > or limited parameters. If I have understood it aright, the moral of the parable of the Crazy Old Sea Captain as applied to science is (allegedly) that the validity of conclusions drawn from experiments in science is ultimately constrained by the (humanly-defined) fundamental concepts on which the science is built. (Putting it crudely, essential elements of the answers are built in to the way the questions are asked.) So, in the context of limitations viewed in this sense, it matters not how many people are involved in the process of developing scientific theories (e.g., in physics), the contention is that the *resultant product* is constrained by the limitations of humans per se to obtain an understanding of the world that transcends assumptions about the world contained in its fundamental concepts. At least, that's my understanding of the parable, though maybe I have got it wrong. Paul Brandon wrote: > Allen Esterson asked: "Does not the superseding of Newtonian > mechanics and theory of gravitation by Einsteinian relativity theory > provide an illustration that science is not *inherently* circular?" > From another perspective, Einstein used Newton's calculus to write his > equations, which reduce to Newton's as velocities approach zero; > the level of measurement available to Newton. Paul: I'm not clear about the argument here. Einsteinian relativity is based on a radically different way of conceptualising space and time to Newtonian physics, so my argument is that the view outlined above purporting to demonstrate that science is inherently circular has been refuted. Allen Esterson Former lecturer, Science Department Southwark College, London http://www.esterson.org --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
