A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Research
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

On the Benefits of Promoting Diversity of Ideas



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old June 16th 14, 07:40 AM posted to sci.astro.research
Phillip Helbig---undress to reply
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 629
Default 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  
Old June 17th 14, 08:16 AM posted to sci.astro.research
Robert L. Oldershaw
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 617
Default 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  
Old June 20th 14, 07:23 AM posted to sci.astro.research
Robert L. Oldershaw
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 617
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Diversity is the Spice of Life... [email protected] Misc 2 November 15th 12 10:11 PM
BBC Countryfile promoting Astronomy :) [email protected] UK Astronomy 6 March 24th 10 07:35 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 07:21 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:02 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.