Natural Order and Science

[little_monkey]

It's really not very important what Einstein thought about things. Interesting for sure, but not very important.

In physics, it's important what he said where he was right. In fact, let me rephrase, where he was right it was so important that it revolutionized how we think about those things, but not everything he said was right, and certainly not necessarily important.

[Alex K]

It's really not very important what Einstein thought about things. Interesting for sure, but not very important.

In physics, it's important what he said where he was right. In fact, let me rephrase, where he was right it was so important that it revolutionized how we think about those things, but not everything he said was right, and certainly not necessarily important.

But the theories now stand on their own. If we tomorrow found a letter by Einstein recanting and saying how relativity theory was a big lie, it would not matter one iota for the science. Nothing would change.

[robvalue]

It's really not very important what Einstein thought about things. Interesting for sure, but not very important.

Sure, I totally agree. It tends to be theists who make that mistake, because they're so used to appeals to authority.

I think the dude might have been Kant.

[little_monkey]

In physics, it's important what he said where he was right. In fact, let me rephrase, where he was right it was so important that it revolutionized how we think about those things, but not everything he said was right, and certainly not necessarily important.

But the theories now stand on their own. If we tomorrow found a letter by Einstein recanting and saying how relativity theory was a big lie, it would not matter one iota for the science. Nothing would change.

You can fantasize all you want but thinking that Relativity "lies" is demonstrating a complete lack of understanding in how scientific theory works. Sure, there were theories in the past that got it wrong, but in the case of Relativity, it does explains quite convincingly a number of facts and therefore there will always be a kernel of truth in Relativity.  If there is a new theory sometimes in the future, it will contain Relativity, just like Relativity contains Newtonian physics.

[robvalue]

I think you misunderstand what Alex is saying.

He means that if we now found a letter Einstein wrote to someone, stating that he had decided it was all nonsense, it wouldn't change the facts. Unless he also posited an objection which could be analysed, it would have to be ignored, and his theory would still stand.

[I_am_not_mafia]

But the theories now stand on their own. If we tomorrow found a letter by Einstein recanting and saying how relativity theory was a big lie, it would not matter one iota for the science. Nothing would change.

You can fantasize all you want but thinking that Relativity "lies" is demonstrating a complete lack of understanding in how scientific theory works. Sure, there were theories in the past that got it wrong, but in the case of Relativity, it does explains quite convincingly a number of facts and therefore there will always be a kernel of truth in Relativity.  If there is a new theory sometimes in the future, it will contain Relativity, just like Relativity contains Newtonian physics.

Theists use the same argument about Darwin while ignoring all the scientific evidence that has been accumulated since Darwin's time and how we now have a much better understand of the evolutionary process than he did. They have trouble getting past the idea of one author handing down 'Truth' in a single document.

[robvalue]

Right. It doesn't matter if a load of scrabble letters happened to fall on the floor and write out the hypothesis. If it passes scientific scrutiny, then it will become a theory.

[Alex K]

You can fantasize all you want but thinking that Relativity "lies" is demonstrating a complete lack of understanding in how scientific theory works. Sure, there were theories in the past that got it wrong, but in the case of Relativity, it does explains quite convincingly a number of facts and therefore there will always be a kernel of truth in Relativity.  If there is a new theory sometimes in the future, it will contain Relativity, just like Relativity contains Newtonian physics.

Theists use the same argument about Darwin while ignoring all the scientific evidence that has been accumulated since Darwin's time and how we now have a much better understand of the evolutionary process than he did. They have trouble getting past the idea of one author handing down 'Truth' in a single document.

That creationists always try to shoot down Darwin as a person to discredit evolution is even funnier because, while Einstein got it so right that the theory remains untouched 110 years later, Darwin was quite wrong on many things - we can't blame him for being confused about inheritance before genetics was known of course. But he is hasn't been a relevant authority on evolutionary science for 80 years.

[Alex K]

Right. It doesn't matter if a load of scrabble letters happened to fall on the floor and write out the hypothesis. If it passes scientific scrutiny, then it will become a theory.

It would freak me out though

[Harris]

You are giving question which demand long technical answer and therefore instead of going through all that boring exercise I proposed you a video that gives all technical details on the tools and methods which scientists are using to detect particles.

Frankly speaking I do not understand the purpose of your question which seems to me irrelevant to the subject of this thread.

You claimed that virtual particles don't exist but real particles do, I disagree, and now you make excuses why it would be ludicrous to actually discuss this. Meh.

Moderator Notice
The content of this post has been removed as it was found to violate the Forum's rules on plagiarism. Copying content from other sources without correct citations and references is unacceptable and will always be removed or the citations enforced when found. 

Pandæmonium - AF.org staff.