Re: Question on Falsification of Common Descent

In article <1156555257.971834.248290@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Kent <musquodster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Robert Grumbine wrote:
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?


Models are judged and ranked by their ability to describe previouus
observations and their track record at correctly predicting the results
of observations before the observation was made.

But observations aren't facts, so who cares?

Explaining factual things has some merit. Explaining nonfactual
things is just a game you're playing for your own amusement.

--
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: Another EPR question
    ... test to choose between your theory and quantum mechanics. ... >> loophole in newton's laws. ... but explains many phenomena for which newtonian mechanics fails. ...
    (sci.physics.research)
  • Re: Question on Falsification of Common Descent
    ... we still use Newtonian mechanics. ... Orbits are explanations for our observations of the planets. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Question on Falsification of Common Descent
    ... we still use Newtonian mechanics. ... special relativity, the rapidly accelerating --> general relativity, ... Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Question on Falsification of Common Descent
    ... Robert Grumbine wrote: ... we still use Newtonian mechanics. ... special relativity, the rapidly accelerating --> general relativity, ...
    (talk.origins)