Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
In many ways, the 16th century scientist was much more open to new ideas than the 20th century scientist. There is a huge leap from the (western) medieval mind, which could explain everything in a religious context, to the Renaissance mind, which puts every aspect of the world back in question.

Modern physicists are much closer to the former, because there is an ever increasing body of knowledge that must be preserved sine qua non. One simply cannot invent a theory that contradicts past successes. For example, both relativity and quantum mechanics must reduce to classical Newtonian physics on the scale of a laboratory or an engineering work.

Newton didn't have to follow the accepted rules of past developments except for one: Euclidean geometry. This does not mean he could not have grasped Einstein's ideas, on the contrary he was probably a better geometer than Einstein. He simply had no reason to develop in that direction, as the experiments that Einstein cared about were not accessible. Moreover, the fact that at least 1/3rd of all of Newton's work was on alchemy suggests to me that he would have been quite at ease with the quantum view of the world.

--
$E(X_t|F_s) = X_s,\quad t > s$

by martingale on Sun May 31st, 2009 at 12:04:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Maybe. One can also construct a sound theory, even prove it, and leave the job of its compatibilty with the acquis communautaire to someone else. The two parts of the demonstration are not necesarily dependent on each other.
The modern history of scientifical theories has seen anything btw, including theories cancelling each other or not being successful because not being convincing, or even liked enough by the community.
Fortunately science doesn't work in the manner of the catholic church burning Giordano Bruno, and there are scientists taking seriously, or at least doubting mystical or spiritual phenomenons without being reduced to muttering silently "eppur si muove".

Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last! (Martin Luther King)
by ValentinD (walentijn arobase free spot franša) on Sun May 31st, 2009 at 06:54:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]
One can also construct a sound theory, even prove it, and leave the job of its compatibilty with the acquis communautaire to someone else.
True, but if the theory is not relevant to other scientists, it stays on the fringes and is soon forgotten. That's a risk one takes.

BTW, I think you're using theory in the typically mathematical sense of a body of consistent results. I believe the word theory is usually reserved by scientists for an amply proven set of mechanisms and conclusions about the some aspect of the world.

--
$E(X_t|F_s) = X_s,\quad t > s$

by martingale on Sun May 31st, 2009 at 11:38:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series