Terry:
Scientists are their own critics by virtue of the fact the Scientific Method requires that every theory be testable.
Theologians work to this premise, too (within the bounds of the materials they work with).
I'm not aware of many scientists (though there are some physicists in this camp) who strip back their method to the simplicity of "1 + 1 = 2", before progressing onto the deeper doctrine of scientific method. We all work on the basis of some foundations, which are rearely challenged until they need to be.
As for past "tradition", things like Newtonian ideas are surely now being challenged in much the same way as Constantinian one's are in the theological world?
And thus "string theory" and "evolution" replace "cause and effect" and "young earth creationism", little by little...
Huh?
What have you been smoking?
What is the actual definition of the SCIENTIFIC METHOD?
Scientific method
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The scientific method or process is considered fundamental to the scientific investigation and acquisition of new knowledge based upon physical evidence. Scientists propose new assertions about our world in the form of theories: observations, hypotheses, and deductions. Predictions from these theories are tested by experiment. If a prediction turns out to be correct, the theory survives. Any theory which is cogent enough to make predictions can then be tested reproducibly in this way. The method is commonly taken as the underlying logic of scientific practice. The scientific method is essentially an extremely
Now really, LittleToe!
As far as Newtonian Physics is concerned your statements are either not fully informed or inadvertantly misleading. What has changed is going from the MACRO world to the MICRO world. A different set of standards have been introduced at the fundamental particle level of inquiry that allows a more productive discussion to take place.
Mathematics allows us to apply methodologies that are useful. What do I mean by useful? It means you don't go beyond what is needed to do the present job.
In America our dollars and cents computations (for example) take the decimal to 2 figures only. In other countries it might be 3 figures.
Gasoline: $2.12 or
Gasoline: $2.124 either way you aren't destroying a useful description of the transaction.
In Physics we observe the motion of bodies and the mathematics is expressed in a broad way which is really quite successful. Otherwise we could not send rockets to the moon.
But, at the Quantum Level the same approach would be "a miss is as good as a mile".
So, Newtonian Physics is not obsolete at all. It is the wrong approach for quantum discovery.
How far away is the moon, for example?
Whatever answer you give is an average. It can vary from 221,463 to 252,710 miles from Earth. We could say about 239,000 miles and not shatter any commandments. But, if you want to be accurate you have to know those distances are expressed from the center of the Earth to the center of the Moon! We aren't talking surface to surface. Does that render our general understanding of the above "wrong" or merely convenient/precise?
The dichotomy is good/better/best and that is all we should need to introduce about Newton vs Feynmann.
Terry
