John Doty wrote:
> Guy Macon wrote:
>> John Doty wrote:
>>
>>> Should 18th century physicists have abandoned Newtonian mechanics and
>>> returned to a belief in Aristotelian physics when Berkeley showed
>>> that it was based on fallacious reasoning? Straight answer, no
>>> evasion please.
>>
>> The above is a classic example of the limited/false alternatives
>> fallacy. You constructed the above argument with the unwarranted
>> assumption that the only possible alternative to Newtonian mechanics
>> is Aristotelian physics, and proceeded to ask me to choose between
>> those options as if they were the only possible answers.
>
> Once again, you evade. Never a straight answer to a simple question.
>
> What alternative was available to 18th century physicists? But, just to
> make you happy, I'll rephrase the question:
>
> Should 18th century physicists have abandoned Newtonian mechanics when
> Berkeley showed that it was based on fallacious reasoning?
>
No, because that is not how science works, and we are talking about a
time when this thing called science was being more fully sketched out.
A theory is a framework upon which one hangs evidence to see how it
fits. One ill-fitting or incorrect bit of evidence does not necessarily
refute the entire theory.
The question ask is, have other scientists since provided arguments that
have added to the body of evidence in question, allowing us to be
reasonably sure our theory is (as far as we know) correct? The answer,
of course, is "yes."
>>
>> It is also a classic example of the begging the question fallacy
>> -- arriving at a conclusion based on statements that themselves have
>> not been proven to be true. In this case you assume but have not
>> established that George Berkeley proved that Issac Newton used
>> fallacious reasoning.
>
> Nobody has refuted Berkeley's reasoning to this day, as far as I know.
> It's solidly based in classical logic, in particular in the "law of the
> excluded middle".
>
> Of course, if you actually study logic instead of just worshiping it
> you'll see that that's a rather shaky principle. Constructivist
> mathematics throws it out. Lyttleton' philosophy of scientific knowledge
> (with which I'm in close agreement) is that it's *all* middle in the
> real world: it's truth and falsehood that are denied us.
>
Yes, logical reasoning is a fantastic tool for some applications. Less
so for developing working hypothesis to see if they fit a theory. We've
all heard the absurd answers that inductive logic leads us to, as they
have become running gags.
> The physicist's answer to Berkeley was to ignore his arguments, as
> calculus works, and that's what matters to a realist. The
> mathematician's answer was to change the foundations of calculus, but
> that took more than a century.
>
Ignoring evidence is an unfortunate fact of scientific research, past
and present. Scientists are people, and make mistakes like other people
do. The difference is that science offers a system of checks and
balances to assist developing and maintaining theories over time.
It sounds a bit like you are arguing by using a sort of "appeal to
authority", but in reverse. It is fallacy that if a famous physicist
has made a single mistake that an entire theory is in jeopardy.
Newton and the many "giants" who came before him represent a huge body
of work, some of it good and some of it since refuted or corrected.
This is just how humans have muddled their way through the ages so we
can have an off-topic conversation over the aether.
Consider this a win. Considering that Quantum mechanics mostly reframes
Newtonian physics, while providing a framework that explains some of the
dark corners that never satisfied even Newton, I think we can say we are
continuing to move in the right direction. There will be mistakes along
the way, even bad ones, but science is a robust tool that recovers quite
easily from such problems.
--
clvrmnky <mailto:spamtrap@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Direct replies to this address will be blacklisted. Replace "spamtrap"
with my name to contact me directly.
|
