At 2:57 PM -0600 2/9/08, Allen Esterson wrote:
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.
You're probably right -- I haven't been following the circularity
argument as carefully as I might.
My bug is the idea that Einstein in some sense *refuted* Newton
rather than extending his model.
While the conceptual (verbal) aspect is quite different, the
mathematics (as I understand it) are an extension rather than a 'from
the ground up' rebuilding.
--
The best argument against intelligent design is that people believe in it.
* PAUL K. BRANDON [EMAIL PROTECTED] *
* Psychology Department 507-389-6217 *
* 23 Armstrong Hall Minnesota State University, Mankato *
* http://krypton.mnsu.edu/~pkbrando/ *
---
To make changes to your subscription contact:
Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
