Philosophy Of Science

[pood]

And Einstein said he never would have dreamed up relativity except for David Hume (philosopher). It should also be recalled that Hume offered a philosophical argument against intelligent design centuries before Darwin.

Philosophy, as always baking bread that science eats.

I started the thread to antagonize you .....

We would not want you to get bored.

Thanks!

 

[Shadowy Man]

If everything is “wrong” then nothing is “wrong” and the word/concept of “wrong” loses any utility in this context. So best not to worry about whether “Einstein proved Newton wrong”.

I don’t think Einstein proved Newton wrong. Newton works fine for everyday stuff. He just showed that Newton’s gravity failed at a certain domain.

maybe you personally do not say that but I have heard it many times from non-scientists.

 

[pood]

If everything is “wrong” then nothing is “wrong” and the word/concept of “wrong” loses any utility in this context. So best not to worry about whether “Einstein proved Newton wrong”.

I don’t think Einstein proved Newton wrong. Newton works fine for everyday stuff. He just showed that Newton’s gravity failed at a certain domain.

maybe you personally do not say that but I have heard it many times from non-scientists.

It’s wrong, of course, because Newton takes us to the planets and is fine for everyday work. It falters at the domains of relativity and QM. I think what this shows is that all our models — and I agree with Steve and Hawking that we should use “model” instead of “theory” — may only be applicable within certain domains. This could also mean that a long-sought theory of everything is forlorn.

 

[pood]

Anyhow, I’m glad this thread got traction. I think talking some more about Trump or Kirk or Gaza would make me

 

[Shadowy Man]

If everything is “wrong” then nothing is “wrong” and the word/concept of “wrong” loses any utility in this context. So best not to worry about whether “Einstein proved Newton wrong”.

I don’t think Einstein proved Newton wrong. Newton works fine for everyday stuff. He just showed that Newton’s gravity failed at a certain domain.

maybe you personally do not say that but I have heard it many times from non-scientists.

It’s wrong, of course, because Newton takes us to the planets and is fine for everyday work. It falters at the domains of relativity and QM. I think what this shows is that all our models — and I agree with Steve and Hawking that we should use “model” instead of “theory” — may only be applicable within certain domains. This could also mean that a long-sought theory of everything is forlorn.

I mostly agree with this. Just don’t like when words like “right” and “wrong” are thrown about in these contexts.

 

[Shadowy Man]

I do think “model” and “theory” do mean different things in science though.

 

[pood]

I do think “model” and “theory” do mean different things in science though.

How would you differentiate them, and should we prefer one over the other?

 

[bilby]

Certainly at least at the college level, it seems to me, discussion of ID is unavoidable and perhaps beneficial to bring out the difference between well-established and productive research programs and those that are not established at all.

If you tried to teach ID as a research program there would be nothing to teach.

I agree, that's absolutely true at the college level. But the supporters of ID are not interested in college students; They know that an adequate indoctrination in primary school is sufficient to recruit lifelong converts.

They don't care for reality, facts, or truth; They care about belief. And beliefs are established in early childhood.

 

[pood]

Certainly at least at the college level, it seems to me, discussion of ID is unavoidable and perhaps beneficial to bring out the difference between well-established and productive research programs and those that are not established at all.

If you tried to teach ID as a research program there would be nothing to teach.

I agree, that's absolutely true at the college level. But the supporters of ID are not interested in college students; They know that an adequate indoctrination in primary school is sufficient to recruit lifelong converts.

They don't care for reality, facts, or truth; They care about belief. And beliefs are established in early childhood.

I don’t know how things are in primary school now, or elementary school as we call it here in the states. But I fear you’re probably right, that students are just presented with a series of ideas, factual or otherwise, to remember and regurgitate back on tests.

Thinking again, though, I was not introduced to evolutionary theory in school until high school, though I already knew about it from reading on my own. Not sure how an elementary/high school teacher would present evolution and ID when they are in direct conflict. Leave it up tp a vote?

I still remember a fourth-grade “science” teacher who presented a model of the atom as a miniature solar system. It had been known for decades that this model was false.

 

[bilby]

Not sure how an elementary/high school teacher would present evolution and ID when they are in direct conflict.

They wouldn't. It would be one or the other; The conflict would be decided by the people who set the syllabus, not in the classroom - certainly at the elementary level. Right now, there seems to be an unwritten agreement to simply ignore the subject as "too hard" for elementary level, and "too divisive" for high school.

Let the parents indoctrinate their kids, and then they can discuss it when they get to college - by which point, they are very unlikely to change their position no matter what evidence is presented.