Norman Wells wrote:
Steve Thackery wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

I am saying that anyone who can prove a scientific theory AT ALL in
any terms whatsoever is someone who has advanced the whole cause of
civilisation and reason way beyond the 40th century.

Scientific theories are not factual, never were and never will be.
They are models of how things appear to happen. The best you can say
is that they are not demonstrably wrong. Newton was demonstrably
wrong, but iot took 300 odd years to do it. Einstein *so far* is
not. If you want certainly, become a catholic. The pope is infallible.
Science is not. Religion claims the one Truth. Science does not.

TNP: although we disagree on some issues, I think this is the best
statement about how science works I've read in ages.

Absolutely spot on: science is not involved with "truth". It produces
"models" which explain the observed phenomena, and let us make useful
predictions.

All of the models have limitations, and most will be replaced in due
course by better ones. Indeed, we know (in advance) that there are
problems with two of our most powerful models, General Relativity and
Quantum Mechanics, because where they overlap they disagree. One day
we'll find something better. Until then, they are both extremely
useful for day-to-day science and technology.

I wish Norman would take this on board.

I would if either applied in the situations we're discussing. But they
don't.

Then you haven't taken them on board.

The philsophy of science is an absolutely essential study for anyone
who really wants to understand science, rather than parrot crude models
*as if they were fact*. In my day, that was the difference between O
level and A level physics. At O level it was taught as 'fact' - at A
level it was taught as 'these are the best handles we have to date on
this stuff: They are not facts, and never were nor ever can be: Its just
the best we can do and it seems to work'

There has been, always has been and always will be a HUGE debate as to
whether scientific models represent a deeper reality (rational
materialism) or are in fact 'just what works' (Instrumentalism) or any
shade between.

Even Galileo failed to understand that, whereas the Church actually did.
They wanted him to merely state (correctly in my opinion) that the re
normalisation of orbital paths to a heliocentric model, was a matter of
mathematical convenience and that to say it 'meant' the 'the earth goes
round the sun' was unjustified.

Relativity means, as much as anything else, that nothing goes round
anything, till you pick an arbitrary point.

Newton defined mass as the quality that produces inertia. That's what
mass has been defined at IN SCIENCE ever since. Einstein predicted, that
this quality would change with velocity, and with energy content,
whereas Newton predicted that it was a constant and an inherent
inviolate property of an object. This seems to be your position.

Einstein's formulae when applied to planetary motion, have been shown to
be more accurate.

Ergo we feel on safe ground saying that Einstein is 'right' or 'more
right' than Newton.

HOWEVER Einstein's formulae when applied to clock springs, pendulums,
and car batteries show that the actual mass change is pretty much beyond
the limits of detection of any way we have of measuring mass. WE have a
philosophical choice: To say that Einstein's formulae only apply when
you can detect the difference, which seems to be your position, or to
say that they apply universally, and the fact that you cant detect the
difference means that it is safe to use Newtonian approximations without
the cannon ball landing more than a few nanometers off target, as it were.

Occams Razor says that in the absence of any exact understanding of the
real case, which is always the situation in science, we don't mix and
match formulae according to taste when one formula works over a broader
range than another, and encompasses ALL that the other has to offer and
does more.

I.e. Einstein broadly agrees to a few parts per billion with Newton, at
'human scale' Physics, it disagrees quite a lot at cosmic scales, and is
shown to be more accurate. We therefore say that Einsteins relativity
and the experiments that are dome to see if it is refutable, have failed
to refute it, but have refuted Newton's theories.

Ergo current thinking is that Einsteins picture is more accurate and
complete, and Newtonian mechanics is in fact, in the limit, wrong. That
doesn't make Einstein RIGHT, just 'less wrong, so far' which as Popper
says, is actually the best that may be expected of a scientific theory.

It doesn't make Newton any less useful either. It's a very good
approximation at small masses and low relative velocities. Good enough
to send a rocket to the moon..just. I believe there were relativistic
corrections in that flight as well though. Someone may know more.

All this is about your sloppy use of such expressions as 'what really
happens' and 'scientific proof' both of which are empty statements
philosophically, and that is not mere verbal gymnastics either. Its a
very deep and very pertinent point: We actually know nothing for sure
about anything. What we have are a set of ideas about the world that
seem to work reliably. The average person calls those ideas 'facts' but
the scientist should never ever be deceived into that position, he
should be better than that.

The difference between you and me, I suspect is that when I say 'the
earth goes round the sun' I am actually aware that it is a shorthand
form for 'the mathematical analysis of orbital paths of the entities we
consider to be 'planets' and 'stars' is most simply achieved to a first
order approximation by choosing heliocentric co-ordinates'

YOU actually think that something real and solid called the earth
actually does go round a big fusion reactor in the sky called the sun.

THAT is an act of faith, worthy of a catholic. I have no such faith. I
know too much to ever believe I know, to quote Wittgenstein 'Reality,
(is whatever is the case)'