On 9 February 2008 Paul Brandon wrote: >[...] 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.
Paul: I don't know if you're making a general (and valid) point, or specifically referring to what I wrote, when you object to Einstein's being said to have "refuted" Newton. Anyway, to make my position clear, I didn't say that Einstein refuted Newton, I suggested that the *circularity of science argument* was refuted by Einstein's producing relativity theory. But - I wouldn't say Einstein "extended" Newton's model, since his theories of special and general relativity produced kinematic and gravitational equations based on a radically different foundation. Perhaps "improved upon" may be a preferable way of expressing it. > 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. I'm not sure the mathematics enters the issue. It is a tool, rather than the theory itself. (Which is, I think, roughly what Tim Shearon argued on this point.) Chris Green wrote: > I am as confused as many others are by this "parable." My own reading of > it is that our own actions (firing the canon) serve to create/construct/configure > the very "nature" (the clock at the clock shop) that we are looking at. And, > thus, in essence we see our own "reflection" rather than an independent nature. As Chris well knows, this is an ancient issue that I think I'll leave to the philosophers, before I get even more out of my depth. Allen Esterson Former lecturer, Science Department Southwark College, London http://www.esterson.org --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
