Re: Fundamental problems in Physics

[Steve Johnson <***>]

--- Steve Johnson <***> wrote:

> 
> 
> Discovery of General Relativity comes to mind. Even
> though it challenged the foundations in a major way
> no
> one thought much of it until the famous experiment
> with the bending of the ray of light by Sun's
> gravity.
> 
> 
> Rosen's critique of the established paradigm is
> extremely effective and LI was probably the most eye
> opening book I've ever read. Tim and Judith are
> right
> that this information is hard to come by unless you
> stumble on it. But for better or worse scientists
> (as
> a group) value theories that help them understand
> much
> less than those that help them predict outcomes of
> experiments. Witness for example Quantum Mechanics.
> Pretty much everyone agrees that its philosophical
> foundations are shoddy yet it does not lead many
> people to question it as long as it explains the
> data.
> 
> Einstein, Bohm and others (including the paper Tim
> posted recently) rebelled against it but were swept
> aside by the sheer accuracy of its predictions.
> 
> Rosen like Einstein was always interested in
> "finding
> out what is actually going on". As QM example
> illustrates few people (present company excluded)
> are
> actually interested in that.
> 
> 
> - Steve
> 
> --- Howard Pattee <***> wrote:
> 
> > Steve,
> > Thank you for your detached evaluation. Judith and
> I
> > are obviously not 
> > communicating productively. She attributes my
> > criticism of Rosen to basic 
> > scientific disagreement or personal antagonism,
> > which is not the case. I am 
> > really trying to criticizing the strategy of Tim
> and
> > Judith in promoting 
> > his ideas. It sounds like a promotional
> > confrontational strategy (you are 
> > either with us or against us) which is not a
> > persuasive strategy. Even if 
> > Rosen is right and all physicist and biologists
> are
> > wrong, I do not believe 
> > this is an effective way to present his ideas.
> > 
> > If I look at the history of physics and biology I
> > can't think of a case 
> > where an abstract idea like Rosen's without
> concrete
> > empirical support has 
> > replaced the established paradigms. I think
> > established models and 
> > paradigms fall only after they don't fit the
> > empirical facts. They do not 
> > change because their philosophical underpinnings
> > have been challenged. Few 
> > scientist believe a new theory, no matter how
> > logically sound, until it is 
> > empirically tested.  Am I wrong on this. Can
> anyone
> > give a counterexample.
> > 
> > Anyway, if this is the usual case, then all this
> > talk about reductionist 
> > models being "wrong," the machine metaphor being
> > "discarded" and physics 
> > "shirking its duty," whether it is right or wrong,
> > is simply useless. In my 
> > opinion it is counterproductive.
> > 
> > Howard
> > 
> 
> 
> 
>               
> __________________________________ 
> Do you Yahoo!? 
> Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses. 
> http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com