|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
On the Benefits of Promoting Diversity of Ideas
In article , "Robert L.
Oldershaw" writes: Maybe it will, maybe it won't. We have no reason to believe that it won't. In my opinion, this is a shocking statement that seems oblivious to the historical fact that science evolves and new models with a more encompassing and unified understanding of nature replace older and more limited models. I highly recommend an essay by Isaac Asimov on this topic: http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScien...ityofWrong.htm There have always been those who resist change, but they seem to overlook the old adage that 'those who do not learn from history are destined to repeat past mistakes.' [Mod. note: we've had this rather sterile discussion befo participants should read Hume on inductive reasoning before attempting to assert that things that have happened before must necessarily happen again, and, meanwhile, concentrate on research in astrophyics, NOT on the philosophy of science -- mjh] Let's look at some examples from astrophysics. Various ancient cultures had many different ideas about the size and distance of the Sun. The Ancient Greeks figured it out via a sound trigonometrical method. Their estimate was somewhat off because of observational difficulties, but they had the right idea, and more recent observations with this method give the CORRECT result. This is not likely to change in the next few billion years. Similarly, they figured out that the Earth is round. Yes, it was later found to be an oblate spheroid, then slightly pear-shaped, and of course there are mountain- and mole-hill size variations. But these in no way invalidate the fact that, to first order, it is round. This will also hold for the next few billion years, at least. There is a huge difference between on the one hand refining a result with new information, but keeping the basic idea intact, and on the other hand expecting that if the Earth is round today, future scientists who don't resist change might find that it is shaped like Homer Simpson. We will probably always learn more about the stars, but after it was realized that they are essentially distant Suns, the basic idea hasn't changed, and never will. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
On the Benefits of Promoting Diversity of Ideas
On Monday, June 16, 2014 2:40:31 AM UTC-4, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply wrote:
scientists who don't resist change might find that it is shaped like Homer Simpson. We will probably always learn more about the stars, but after it was realized that they are essentially distant Suns, the basic idea hasn't changed, and never will. With apologies to the moderator for continuing this discussion longer than SHOULD be necessary, I feel that it must be clarified that the above comments ignore the distinction between empirically determined facts about nature and theoretical models. Also, I do not think that a fiction writer is the best choice of reference for this discussion. [Mod. note: presumably you're aware that Asimov was a professional scientist well before he was a professional writer, and wrote vast quantities of non-fiction? -- mjh] |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
On the Benefits of Promoting Diversity of Ideas
On Tuesday, June 17, 2014 3:16:57 AM UTC-4, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:
[Mod. note: presumably you're aware that Asimov was a professional scientist well before he was a professional writer, and wrote vast quantities of non-fiction? -- mjh] Ok, I skimmed the Asimov essay and here is my comment on it. In 1914 QM was in its infancy, general relativity was under development and the human species was oblivious to galaxies and galactic scale phenomena. I agree with Asimov that we learned a lot between 1914 and 2014. However, if Asimov is arguing that in 2114 our physics will be essentially the physics of 2014 with a few missing pieces added that serve to decrease its "incomplete" status, then I think he has fallen into a very common intellectual trap that has been repeated over and over again in every era: thinking that the current paradigm is nearly "finished" and will not be made obsolete by a new paradigm that takes a very different approach to understanding nature. It is a form of human hubris. We say we used to know diddley-squat, but now we have a comprehensive understanding of nature with just a few loose ends to tie up. Same as it ever was. [Mod. note: another very common intellectual trap is to assume that you can accurately know the future based on the past. The truth is that we don't know either way. End of discussion, please -- mjh] |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Diversity is the Spice of Life... | [email protected] | Misc | 2 | November 15th 12 09:11 PM |
BBC Countryfile promoting Astronomy :) | [email protected] | UK Astronomy | 6 | March 24th 10 06:35 AM |
AUSTRALIA RETARDS PROMOTING CANCER TAP WATER | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 43 | September 28th 07 12:21 PM |
NASA and Diversity | DILLIGAF | Space Shuttle | 0 | February 17th 06 06:21 PM |