|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Responses to New Planck Results
On Thursday, September 25, 2014 2:09:57 PM UTC-4, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:
On Thursday, September 25, 2014 3:41:25 AM UTC-4, Craig Markwardt wrote: [Mod. note: reformatted. Note that the conclusion of that article is 'science can get it wrong at times but is always self-correcting' -- pretty much what all practising scientists here would say -- mjh] --------------------------------------------------- Then "all practicing scientists here" should remember that without mavericks like Galileo, Faraday, Einstein, Mandelbrot, Feigenbaum, etc. the physics community would have spun its wheels indefinitely by adding epicycles to the old paradigm, rather than questioning assumptions, identifying the underlying problem and showing the path to a new paradigm that offered a better, more unified, understanding of nature. The new book on Faraday/Maxwell/EM is an archetypal case in point. Virtually everyone thought that Faraday was wrong-headed (and/or a quack) because his ideas conflicted with the dominant Newtonian paradigm. The book documents this quite clearly. Maxwell was almost alone in treating Faraday's ideas about a "field" theory for EM seriously. On the other side of the equation, after 44 years of string theory pseudo-science and its failure to deliver anything useful for physics, Witten this week doubles down on his faith that it will lead somewhere ('maybe in 200 years'?). "Always self-correcting"? Not by the leaders of the community, nor by the obedient majority of its members. Kuhn's "normal science" is notoriously bad at correcting the most fundamental errors in the foundational assumptions. RLO fractal Cosmology |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Responses to New Planck Results
In article , "Robert L.
Oldershaw" writes: "Always self-correcting"? Not by the leaders of the community, nor by the obedient majority of its members. Kuhn's "normal science" is notoriously bad at correcting the most fundamental errors in the foundational assumptions. As has been pointed out many times, you seem to blindly assume that Kuhn's analysis is correct, indeed that it must be correct, almost as if he were some sort of prophet. As for the mavericks: Einstein was awarded the Nobel Prize (and many other awards) within a few years of his discoveries. Looks like acceptance by the community to me. Galileo's problems were not so much with the scientific community but rather with the Church. Of course new ideas come along---that is how science progresses. But the idea that old paradigms are kept on life support until the old fogeys die or some revolutionary overthrows them is just not supported by the historical data. Suppose Kuhn is just waffling nonsense. Then it is a waste of time to consider his ideas. On the other hand, suppose his ideas are real science backed up by data. Then, by his own petard, so to speak, his ideas will be superseded by a new paradigm, so again no reason to waste time on them. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Test Results You Want, Test Results You Get -- MAN AS OLD AS COAL. | Ed Conrad | Astronomy Misc | 0 | April 11th 06 01:06 AM |
telescope question - responses | Arty | Amateur Astronomy | 0 | February 6th 06 03:23 PM |
Redshifting Planck | dirkbontes | Astronomy Misc | 2 | December 15th 05 06:25 PM |
troll (assumed) responses | Steve at fivetrees | History | 135 | June 17th 04 09:00 PM |