At 3:41 AM -0600 2/10/08, Allen Esterson wrote: >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.)
I think that this comes down to a preference of philosophy of science. I wonder which (most) physicists think is the real theory? -- The best argument against Intelligent Design is that fact that people believe in it. * PAUL K. BRANDON [EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Psychology Dept Minnesota State University * * 23 Armstrong Hall, Mankato, MN 56001 ph 507-389-6217 * * http://krypton.mnsu.edu/~pkbrando/ * --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
