Re: Question on Falsification of Common Descent

In article <1156517756.262142.56460@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Kent <musquodster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Robert Grumbine wrote:

Indeed. Nevertheless, in spite of your comments about Newton being
overthrown and the like, we still use Newtonian mechanics. Rather peculiar
thing w.r.t. your implicit argument that once something is shown to
have shortcomings, it is absolutely _dis_established. Newton's mechanics,
we discovered, are still excellent and excellently well established.
What changed is that we discovered that in regimes (the very fast -->
special relativity, the rapidly accelerating --> general relativity,
the very small --> quantum mechanics) in which it hadn't been tested
before, it wasn't fully correct. But its incorrectness is a matter of
limiting parameters. All three theories converge to Newtonian mechanics
as the appropriate parameter (v/c, for instance) goes to the appropriate
limit.


Isaac Asimov had an interesting article "The Relativity of Wrong"
(published in the Skeptical Inquirier). His calim is basically that all
theories are worng but some are more wrong than others. Newton's Laws
are wrong but less wrong than Aristotelian physics and more wrong than
quantum mechanics. The question is not whether a model is right or
wrong but how wrong. In this context it makes no sense to talk about a
theory being a fact. That Newtonian physics is not absolutely true
does not effect its usefulness in describing planetary motion. As I
said "fact" is not a useful concept.

Unfortunately you snipped without marking my next para.

Rephrased: How, in your fact-free world, do you many any decisions
about how wrong a theory is?

--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: How many things can happen in a single instant?
    ... >> interval of time is the time it takes to move one seat, ... >> Right now our leading theory of mechanics is Relativistic Quantum ... >> relativity. ... >> different from Newtonian mechanics. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Question on Falsification of Common Descent
    ... we still use Newtonian mechanics. ... special relativity, the rapidly accelerating --> general relativity, ... said "fact" is not a useful concept. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • How many things can happen in a single instant?
    ... with the implications of quantum mechanics and string ... And in the next row, are four more people, but sitting one seat ... we updated Newtonian mechanics and made it special ... And finally we combobulated special relativity, ...
    (sci.physics.research)
  • How many things can happen in a single instant?
    ... with the implications of quantum mechanics and string ... And in the next row, are four more people, but sitting one seat ... we updated Newtonian mechanics and made it special ... And finally we combobulated special relativity, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: How many things can happen in a single instant?
    ... > seat to the right of the original row. ... > We know that from quantum mechanics and Planck's Constant, ... we updated Newtonian mechanics and made it special ... And finally we combobulated special relativity, ...
    (sci.physics)