Re: Demolishing the modern synthesis

Kent <musquodster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Aug 16, 5:55 am, r norman <r_s_norman@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 11:38:47 +0200, nos...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (J. J.



Lodder) wrote:
r norman <r_s_norman@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 23:50:09 +0200, nos...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (J. J.
Lodder) wrote:

r norman <r_s_norman@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 10:55:36 +0200, nos...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (J. J.
Lodder) wrote:

r norman <r_s_norman@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 22:31:17 +0200, nos...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (J. J.
Lodder) wrote:

Richard Harter <c...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

Back in July of 1999 I posted a "demolition" of the modern
synthesis. This led to a lively discussion with various
attempts at refuting the demolition and arguments against the
attempt. There was no clear resolution and in the end the
discussion moved to other matters. I thought it would be of
interest to represent the discussion.

No, it isnt.
Scientific theories can't be demolished,
they can only be replaced by better theories.

Actually, they can. The notion of the ether was demolished by
Michelson-Morley, not because of a better theory: the constancy of
the speed of light regardless of motion of the observer remained a
problem.

Ah, you believe in mythology comstructed long after the fact
(by someone with empiricist blinders apparently)
rather than in real history as it really happened.
Then explain: why did nobody doubt the aether
untill after Einstein-1905?

What M&M did show was that there was some problem it the theory,
but it wasn't obvious at all what the problem was
and what should be done about it.
(Lorentz contraction, aether-drag, or yet something else?)
No one thought of giving up the aether altogether.

In fact, Michelson himself never gave up his belief in the aether,
not even long after 1905.
He believed in aether-drag, and very much regretted
that he never succeeded in geting funds
to redo his experiment on top of a high mountain.
(perhaps there was less aether-drag there)

Certainly individuals are reluctant to abandon their cherished notions
but it still remains true that scientific theories can be undercut by
experimental contradiction even without an alternative theory while
people still clutch at straws trying to save them.

Evasions. If you want to stick to your point it is up to you
to cite someone who has said before 1905
that M&M 'demolished' the aether.

I also did cite several other examples beyond Michelson-Morley.

Sure, but I didn't look at them,
for your comments about M&M showed
that you are a bit clueless
about the real history of science
as it really happened.

I admit to being less than completely expert in the history of
science, but I reserve "clueless" for a knockoff movie of a Jane
Austen novel.

A bit overstated perhaps, but the point is that you are talking about
invented history as it should have happened according to some philosophy
of science, rather than about real history as it really happened.

Wikipedia introduces M&M by saying "It is generally
considered to be the first strong evidence against the theory of a
luminiferous aether."

Yes, but -when- was this consideration being considered?
The answer is: not untill after 1905.

Whether "strong evidence against a theory"
demolishes it depends on how stubborn its adherents remain.

Again, 'victor's history' from much later.

Michelson's own words were "The interpretation of these results is
that there is no displacement of the interference bands. ... The
result of the hypothesis of a stationary ether is thus shown to be
incorrect." So I was not clueless, merely careless in not saying
"stationary" ether instead of, simply, ether.

There you have an example. Michilson didn't at all
consider the aether to be demolished.
He thought that he had found a new property of it.
(namely it being dragged by the earth)

As to the stubborness of the adherents, according to one source, "The
proponents of an "ether" as a propagating medium for the light were
not ready to give up the idea, and proposed that the Earth dragged the
ether along with it in its orbit, thus accounting for the negative
result of the interferometer experiment. Lord Rayleigh wrote to
Michelson, urging him to repeat the experiment with greater accuracy
to test these hypotheses. Michelson, with the collaboration of E. W.
Morley, constructed a new interferometer with multiple mirrors and a
pathlength about 10 times longer. This device should have given a
fringe shift of about 0.4, but they observed less than 0.005 fringe
(A. A. Michelson and E. W. Morley, Am. J. Sci., 134, 333 (1887)). "
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/mmhist.html

Indeed, no one considered abolishing the aether
as the solution to the problem.
Not because they were being stubborn,
but because no one could invent an alternative.

Sorry, the ether was demolished although not the ether adherents who
remained desperately clinging to nothing. This is the kind of thing
Kuhn talked about as a paradigm shift.

I'll not comment since Wilkins has demolished your notion already
with sufficient thoroughness.

(Note to picky historians and
philosophers of science: whether Kuhn was right or wrong in general,
the example still holds.) Ether was rendered untenable without any
acceptable theory to replace it.

Lorentz din't agree with you, and in fact nobody did at the time.
Again, please stop this silly series of assertions
about invented history,
or point to one reference of a reputable scientists
having said before 1905 that the notion of the aether
had become untenable and must be abolished.

I believe if you actually review the history of science you will find
that there was elaborate effort to distinguish between the stationary
ether and the dragged ether with proponents of each and people
actually switching sides which because more desperate because the M-M
experiments failed to conform to any proposal. FitzGerald and Lorentz
tried to patch things up as best he could but in the end came up with
his contraction notion as the only thing that could explain the data.
Before Einstein, all attempts to explain the contraction were ad-hoc.

Poincare and Lorentz did all the math for special relativity before
Einstein but neither was ready to abandon the ether. It was Einstein's
main contribution that the ether was unnecessary.

There is some irony in this.
Kuhn declared this to have been a paradigm shift,
and even a scientific revolution perhaps, much much later.
Yet Einstein himself has said that special relativity
wasn't a revolution at all.
On the contrary, he has said
that it was a necessary and inevitable development,
and that the time was ripe for it.
This in his opinion explains the rapid adoption
of SR by the working scientific community.
(first honorary doctorate 1909,
first Nobel prize nomination already in 1910)

It was only the nobel committee
(filled with provincial second-raters
with the usual experimentalist bias)
that was excessively slow.

Jan

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Demolishing the modern synthesis
    ... attempts at refuting the demolition and arguments against the ... The notion of the ether was demolished by ... rather than in real history as it really happened. ... No one thought of giving up the aether altogether. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Demolishing the modern synthesis
    ... attempts at refuting the demolition and arguments against the ... The notion of the ether was demolished by ... rather than in real history as it really happened. ... No one thought of giving up the aether altogether. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Demolishing the modern synthesis
    ... Lodder) wrote: ... attempts at refuting the demolition and arguments against the ... No one thought of giving up the aether altogether. ... "stationary" ether instead of, simply, ether. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Demolishing the modern synthesis
    ... Lodder) wrote: ... attempts at refuting the demolition and arguments against the ... The notion of the ether was demolished by ... No one thought of giving up the aether altogether. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Demolishing the modern synthesis
    ... Lodder) wrote: ... attempts at refuting the demolition and arguments against the ... Scientific theories can't be demolished, ... No one thought of giving up the aether altogether. ...
    (talk.origins)