Scientific fundamentalism

CZ I do believe you're playing games with me :)

You know the difference between technology and science, the difference between how to do something and what makes it work. Newtonian physics for example was all about e.g. why an object falls, why does it fall the way it does. It was based on empirical observation. Multiple universes are not. But people had been dropping things for millennia without wondering why they fell. That's technology.

All your examples of science from other cultures were technologies. Only our civilisation has made a fetish out of knowledge.
 
Virtual_Cliff said:
Newtonian physics for example was all about e.g. why an object falls, why does it fall the way it does. It was based on empirical observation.
Click to expand...

Actually, I'd argue that Newtonian physics had very little to do with "why" an object falls and more to do with "how" it falls. Even today we still don't know what gravity is. We've never detected directly what it is. All we can do is experience and exploit it's effect.

And no... I'm not playing with you, just trying to understand your point.

As for other civilizations only dabbling in technology and not science, I'm sure the Chinese would be dismayed that you devalue their discoveries and inquisitiveness. Likewise the Mayans who didn't just invent a calendar out of thin air, but must have devoted a great deal of study in astronomy.

What leads you to assert that their inquiry, study and application is somehow different from our own? Do humans really differ so much? Haven't we discovered by now that humans are the same beings no matter what part of the globe we're from?
 
citizenzen said:
Actually, I'd argue that Newtonian physics had very little to do with "why" an object falls and more to do with "how" it falls. Even today we still don't know what gravity is. We've never detected directly what it is. All we can do is experience and exploit it's effect.
Click to expand...

Newton knew how and why. The object falls because of gravity (remember the apple). Newton was a pretty smart guy, not everyone could invent the field of calculus because he needed new tools to describe rates of change.

Eintstein had just as brilliant technical achievements but also considered issues in philosophy, politics and religion.

Hawkings had brilliant achievements but stuck to physics. It seems like this is the current paradigm.
 
Einstein was extraordinary, It's ashame he too took much interest in politics though. But the guy was out of balance he may have suffered from Aspergers syndrome a mild form autism, he had very poor people skills. Usually people with this condition excel in other fields like art for instance.
 
Avi said:
Newton knew how and why.
Click to expand...

Newton did not know the why. His calculus describes the how.

Perhaps this can help with the confusion...

[from wikipedia] The terms gravitation and gravity are mostly interchangeable in everyday use, but a distinction is made in scientific usage. "Gravitation" is a general term describing the phenomenon by which bodies with mass are attracted to one another, while "gravity" refers specifically to the net force exerted by the Earth on objects in its vicinity as well as by other factors, such as the Earth's rotation.​

In this article, Newton's law is referred to as Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation. In other words, the law involves the effect of gravity and does not explain what the force is.

Here is an excerpt on Gravitational Waves...

In physics, a gravitational wave is a fluctuation in the curvature of spacetime which propagates as a wave, traveling outward from the source. Predicted by Einstein's theory of general relativity, the waves transport energy known as gravitational radiation. Sources of gravitational waves include binary star systems composed of white dwarfs, neutron stars, or black holes.

Although gravitational radiation has not yet been directly detected, it has been indirectly shown to exist. This was the basis for the 1993 Nobel Prize in Physics, awarded for measurements of the Hulse-Taylor binary system. Various gravitational wave detectors exist.​

Now that begins to touch on the why, but it is still unproven and currently being tested.

I hope this clears things up a little.
 
Yeah know one knows why when it comes to gravity.. There is some very puzzling things about gravity that we simply do not understand.

Of what I understand of gravity, the more mass something has the more gravitational pull it has, but why? Also this force is no way near as strong as say magnetism. String theorists say its possible that part of gravity belongs in another dimension.
 
citizenzen said:
... and Juan declines...

Cool. That means I win!

I think that makes the current score

Science – 1,994,663,885,373,209,011,957,144,299,656,444,843,084,189,909,263,353,731,190,090,343,222,841,189,252,409,131,234,173,879,157,967,145,980,145,853

vs.

Religion – 4

But don't dispair. There's still time on the clock. ;)
Click to expand...
Heck, neither can explain everything... and as many scientists are religious, and many theologians believe in science...

I think the only ones keeping score are those who feel they have something to lose.
 
We’ve all heard what happens when science turns nasty. Religion has been the moral guide to all human culture. I don't think science and religion are in the same court to make points.
 
Postmaster said:
We’ve all heard what happens when science turns nasty. Religion has been the moral guide to all human culture. I don't think science and religion are in the same court to make points.
Click to expand...

Likewise, we've all seen what happens when religion turns nasty. Science has been the rational voice that has also guided human culture.

I would agree that science and religion are not in the same court and that keeping track of points is a joke... at least that is what I intended by posting a score. :D
 
Yeah but that one is abit of a paradox because when religion turns nasty its not really religion, not a classical one anyway.
 
There is no covenant in science giving it a moral agenda? Science is more based on neutrality.

Apart from medicine where you have the Hippocratic Oath to complete your degree.
 
citizenzen said:
Actually, I'd argue that Newtonian physics had very little to do with "why" an object falls and more to do with "how" it falls.
Click to expand...


citizenzen said:
Newton did not know the why.
Click to expand...

Newton knew how an object falls. Newton also know exactly why it falls. It is because of the affect of gravity on the object.

citizenzen said:
Even today we still don't know what gravity is.
Click to expand...
Today we know what gravity is. Gravity is the curvature of space / time within the field of massive objects. So gravity is well understood as an isolated force.


citizenzen said:
His calculus describes the how.

Perhaps this can help with the confusion...
[from wikipedia] The terms gravitation and gravity are mostly interchangeable in everyday use, but a distinction is made in scientific usage. "Gravitation" is a general term describing the phenomenon by which bodies with mass are attracted to one another, while "gravity" refers specifically to the net force exerted by the Earth on objects in its vicinity as well as by other factors, such as the Earth's rotation.
​
In this article, Newton's law is referred to as Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation.
Click to expand...
This is pretty basic stuff. Nothing new here.

citizenzen said:
Here is an excerpt on Gravitational Waves...
In physics, a gravitational wave is a fluctuation in the curvature of spacetime which propagates as a wave, traveling outward from the source. Predicted by Einstein's theory of general relativity, the waves transport energy known as gravitational radiation. Sources of gravitational waves include binary star systems composed of white dwarfs, neutron stars, or black holes.

Although gravitational radiation has not yet been directly detected, it has been indirectly shown to exist. This was the basis for the 1993 Nobel Prize in Physics, awarded for measurements of the Hulse-Taylor binary system. Various gravitational wave detectors exist.
​
Now that begins to touch on the why, but it is still unproven and currently being tested.

I hope this clears things up a little.
Click to expand...

Gravity waves were predicted by Einstein and proved experimentally recently. They relate to binaries and black holes, not simple gravity, such as we experience on earth. They are a much more complex process than gravity itself and are not related to the current discussion of "why an object falls", posed in your post.

Einstein spent most of the later part of his career trying to develop a "unified field theory" which would explain the interrelations between the known forces, including gravity and other fundamental forces such as those described in quantum theory. Einstein never succeeded in unifying these forces. These more complex issues border on what is perhaps a theological discussion.
 
Avi said:
Einstein spent most of the later part of his career trying to develop a "unified field theory" which would explain the interrelations between the known forces, including gravity. These issues bordered on what is perhaps a theological discussion.
Click to expand...
It is theological until it is known and then it is science. And science to those without the knowledge/understanding is magic or miraculous.
 
Avi said:
Newton knew how an object falls. Newton also know exactly why it falls. It is because of the affect of gravity on the object.
Click to expand...

Avi, Newton knew how an objects fell, but he did not know why. May I refer to this section from Newton's law of universal gravitation in wikipedia [bolding mine]...


Newton's reservations

He never, in his words, "assigned the cause of this power". In all other cases, he used the phenomenon of motion to explain the origin of various forces acting on bodies, but in the case of gravity, he was unable to experimentally identify the motion that produces the force of gravity (although he invented two mechanical hypothesis in 1675 and 1717). Moreover, he refused to even offer a hypothesis as to the cause of this force on grounds that to do so was contrary to sound science. He lamented that "philosophers have hitherto attempted the search of nature in vain" for the source of the gravitational force, as he was convinced "by many reasons" that there were "causes hitherto unknown" that were fundamental to all the "phenomena of nature". These fundamental phenomena are still under investigation and, though hypotheses abound, the definitive answer has yet to be found. And in Newton's 1713 General Scholium in the second edition of Principia: "I have not yet been able to discover the cause of these properties of gravity from phenomena and I feign no hypotheses... It is enough that gravity does really exist and acts according to the laws I have explained, and that it abundantly serves to account for all the motions of celestial bodies."​
 
citizenzen said:
Avi, Newton knew how an objects fell, but he did not know why.
Click to expand...

CZ, if you think Newton did not know exactly what gravity was, I have only one final comment on the matter :


1/2 mv**2=mgh :D

Sometimes physicists can explain ideas better in equations than they can in words :)
 
citizenzen-albums-my-silly-stuff-picture1062-cosmologicalconstant.png



The equation above is the Cosmological constant.

By your logic, if we can measure the expansion of the universe, then we must know what the universe is.

:confused: :confused: :confused:

I would say that just because something can be measured, does not mean that it is understood.
 
citizenzen said:
citizenzen-albums-my-silly-stuff-picture1062-cosmologicalconstant.png



The equation above is the Cosmological constant.

By your logic, if we can measure the expansion of the universe, then we must know what the universe is.

:confused: :confused: :confused:
Click to expand...

That idea is not as crazy as it sounds. One way of knowing what something is, is to measure something about it. That is often called characterization.

This reminds me of the "blind men and elephant" story, I am pretty sure you know it:

Blind men and an elephant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As we put together different pieces of the elephant we get to see the whole elephant, in context. This is usually how research is accomplished.

By analogy, Newton's view of gravity, although somewhat rudimentry, was an important part of the picture that we have today.

As the description of the phenomenon became more complex, ultimately relativistic descriptions always had to collapse to classical ones, at velocities well below light.

In retrospect, Newton had it easy :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top