[asa] Re: [asa] YEC--What can we offer them?

>General relativity differs radically from Newton in its way of looking at
>space, time and motion.  The practical consequences are minuscule compared
>with the magnitude of the paradigm shift behind them!  Newton was not wrong,
>but his theory lacked generality.
>
>Quantum mechanics revealed that entities at micro-scale behave nothing like
>entities at macro-scale.  So QM also introduced a paradigm shift, because
>the general assumption had been that objects should behave similarly at all
>scales.
>
>In this case physicists were wrong (their "theories were invalidated")
>because they assumed objects should behave similarly at all scales.

I'm not trying to say that these were not significant ideas, or
that they came without some major suprises. But Newton's laws
were basically right in as much as one stay inside the proper
domain. The Michelson-Morley experiment the parhelion of mercury
did offer some puzzles that Einstein teased out with a better
theory. But when the relativistic equations are simplified,
you still get Newton's laws.

Likewise, with the harmonic oscillator,
if you calculate a 1 gram mass on a spring, you find you end up
with enormous quantum numbers that make it clear that it is a
classical object. Once you understand what is happening, you
can extrapolate behavior that goes all the way from atomic, to
mesoscopic to macroscopic scale in a very smooth way.

On the other hand, geocentricism was just wrong. We cannot
extrapolate to a Ptolmey's law. We just got it plain backwards.

So QM and relativity fit better what Randy was calling revisions,
refinements etc.

On the other hand, we have Benjamin Franklin to blame for deciding
that the charges that moved were the ones on the glass, not on sealing
wax). It seems you can say, when you start things, it is much easier
to get it backwards. So the ancient world was not at all to blame
for not knowing there frame of reference.
 
>
>Earth scientists early last century were wrong about plate tectonics because
>they (often vociferously) derided the idea of continental drift.
>
>In both these cases--QM and plate tectonics--experimental data shoved
>scientists by the seat of the pants kicking and screaming into new
>paradigms.
>

Yeah, OK, with QM there is the issue of entanglement. So philosophy
new and radical ideas were introduced that have troubled us ever
since. But still, the classical physics was not wrong, just
incomplete.

With plate techtonics, it seemed to me more like another creative
idea that got violently supressed by some know-it-alls. I guess
for them, it was a pardigm shift. It's more like what they did to
Boltzmann and I think Faraday too. Darwin was probably just lucky
he didn't get thoroughly smooshed. Creativity in science is about
as respected as it is in art.

>Therefore I'd revise Randy's claim as follows:  Scientific theories go where
>experiments lead.  In no case have scientists gone back to an old theory
>once data and theorists made it clear there was a better theory.
>(Exception: Sometimes an old theory still has pedagogical or computational
>uses.)

Experiment is generally better to defer to than theory, but I
do think it is possible for a good theory to teach how to do
better experiments. Indeed, the may show the way to proceed
with new and better experiments. It just depends.

>
>I'd never say a theory had been validated.  Consistent with all data and
>able to make good predictions--that's as good as it gets.
>

Agreed, we can only go with what we have.

by Grace we proceed,
Wayne (ASA)

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Jul 5 09:35:38 2007