Reply to BB

Hello BB,

You know I cannot get very interested in semantics, especially when
the main function seems to be to obscure issues that should be very
transparent.

Two of my favorite predictions concerned the discovery of galaxies,
and the solar eclipse experiment of 1919.

Galaxies: At one time there were two groups of astronomers who had
very different interpretation of certain "nebulae". One group said
they were what we now call galaxies (distant "island universes"), and
the other group said they were local nebulae, or smudges on the
telescope lens, etc. Well, a very nice prediction arose. In one case
they were at huge distances and the other hypothesis predicted "short"
distances. The rest is history.

Solar eclipse of 1919: Everyone knows this, or should. Yes, there are
various complications that are overlooked in the usual retelling, but
the bottom line was that Newtonian gravitation predicted one value and
General Relativity predicted another. The rest is history.

Predictions like this are very special. When we talk about predictions
we need emphasize actual historical examples, not engage in a lot of
semantic arm-waving, unnecessary complexification and obfuscation.

Yours in science
Knecht
www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

Hello Knecht,

I have nothing against the anecdotal niceties of the History of Science, but in
my not-so-humble opinion what's transparent is that there is *no* link of
*necessity* between, say, on the one hand Einstein's theory of Gravitation
together with the general quality of its description of Nature, and on the other
hand, the historical particulars you mention of the public test of its
superiority, achieved as it was (brilliantly, etc).

Again, I am not saying the latter isn't interesting. And I won't even deny that
some people aren't above deliberately confusing simple minds by playing on a
misunderstanding on the values of "to predict". But both IMO are issues more of
anthropology than physics. Do you mean to include some (abstraction of)
anthropology into physics ? - You might convince me there.

As it is, I feel common intuitions and theories of (scientific) knowledge are
damagingly biased towards the researcher's viewpoint (the context of competing
for new results) and against the teacher's viewpoint (reformatting what we know
so as to make it as easier for new generations of brains; while not complicating
things because of issues of priority or property that are irrelevant to the real
matter). Given that, and even if I can admit your suspicion isn't totally
without ground, I can't help but like it when people use "to predict" in a way
that does not refer to a particular state of the competition for results.

Regards, BB

Knecht wrote:
Hello BB,

You know I cannot get very interested in semantics, especially when
the main function seems to be to obscure issues that should be very
transparent.

Two of my favorite predictions concerned the discovery of galaxies,
and the solar eclipse experiment of 1919.

Galaxies: At one time there were two groups of astronomers who had
very different interpretation of certain "nebulae". One group said
they were what we now call galaxies (distant "island universes"), and
the other group said they were local nebulae, or smudges on the
telescope lens, etc. Well, a very nice prediction arose. In one case
they were at huge distances and the other hypothesis predicted "short"
distances. The rest is history.

Solar eclipse of 1919: Everyone knows this, or should. Yes, there are
various complications that are overlooked in the usual retelling, but
the bottom line was that Newtonian gravitation predicted one value and
General Relativity predicted another. The rest is history.

Predictions like this are very special. When we talk about predictions
we need emphasize actual historical examples, not engage in a lot of
semantic arm-waving, unnecessary complexification and obfuscation.

Yours in science
Knecht
www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw