From: casper@vxcrna.cern.ch (CASPER,DAVI./PPE)
Subject: Re: same old same old
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: European Organization for Nuclear Research, CERN
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 21:12:00 GMT

In article <26757@castle.ed.ac.uk>, cam@castle.ed.ac.uk (Chris Malcolm) writes...
>In article <9OCT199212410150@vxcrna.cern.ch> casper@vxcrna.cern.ch (CASPER,DAVI./PPE) writes:
> 
>>This is simply, utterly, and demonstrably false.  In the case of physics,
>>theories are discarded almost overnight when compelling evidence arrives.
> 
>This is simply, utterly, and demonstrably false. How long was it
>before Newton's "magical" notion of gravity as an instantaneous effect
>at a distance was accepted by every physicist? 

This was a case where the evidence was less than clear, and in any event, in
Newton's day, the media for communicating scientific results was hardly like
what we have today.  I would wager a lot of physicists of Newton's day were
not familiar with his theory, much less able to reach an informed judgement on
it.

>How long was it before Einstein's relativity was accepted by every physicist?

Here there was only a single experimental effect (deflection of starlight during
an eclipse) which supported the theory for a period of something like 20 or
more years.  There was also the precession of the perihelion of Mercury, but
both these effects could be explained by a modified version of Newton's theory
with a small cubic term added, or in Mercury's case, a small quadrupole moment
(i.e. bulge) in the Sun.  Even today there are doubts as to whether the
General Theory is not an approximation.  It is always good to have a small
group of people who are unconvinced, since they are the ones most likely to
find ways to improve, or at least weaknesses in the theory.  So you are arguing
that dissent is not uncommon or impossible in science - is that not the
opposite of the point you were trying to make?

>How long was the period when every observation and experiment that confirmed
>Einstein's predictions was determinedly "explained away" by die-hard
>Newtonians? 

See above.  The interplay between Newtonians and Relativists was part of the
healthy examination of competing ideas.  Don't forget that Einstein's original
theory was also fundamentally flawed due to his adding a "Cosmological
Constant" to maintain a steady-state universe.

>Why did Kuhn suggest, in his theory of scientific revolutions based largely
>on the history of physics, that in many cases the die-hards never convert to
>the new ideas, and that one has to wait for them actually to die before a
>new paradigm is generally accepted?

Ask Kuhn.  I never said there weren't die-hards.  You are making the leap from
the existence of this sort of person to their being the majority.  There are
ample examples of cases where important new discoveries which overturned the
existing models were rapidly accepted - consider the Michelson-Morley expt.
(constancy of speed of light -> death of the ether theory), the Hubble
expansion of the universe, discovery of the charm quark, quantum theory,
etc, etc.  All you are really saying is that science and scientists are not
a monolithic entity who all believe the same thing.  People are wrong sometimes.
There are also many times where apparently major discoveries are themselves
overturned because enough people are skeptical and expose the right flaws -
cold fusion being one recent example, poly-water, etc.

>I wonder why it is that the people who pose as hard-headed sceptical
>scientists in groups like sci.skeptic, alt.astrology, etc., are so
>often so astonishingly ignorant about science?

See above.  Clearly your knowledge of the history of science is less than
perfect as well.


Dave

Newsgroups: alt.astrology