tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7974406176404624210.post3724175208132264555..comments2023-10-31T05:19:13.856-07:00Comments on In Coldfall Wood: Thomas Kuhn, Science and that dreaded word “Culture”Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18050738279435149377noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7974406176404624210.post-79482387088699269972013-07-18T00:26:50.713-07:002013-07-18T00:26:50.713-07:00PS. Wikipedia article on Quantum Mechanics:
Steph...PS. Wikipedia article on Quantum Mechanics:<br /><br />Stephen Hawking was initially a believer in the Theory of Everything, after considering Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem, he has concluded that one is not obtainable, and has stated so publicly in his lecture "Gödel and the End of Physics" (2002).<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7974406176404624210.post-66109889465436383132013-07-17T23:45:11.242-07:002013-07-17T23:45:11.242-07:00That's an interesting post and an interesting ...That's an interesting post and an interesting response comment. Thank you both. Is there a debate here about what "progress" means? At this point in time, such miniscule, theoretical "scientific progress" as it is now humanly possible to make necessarily comes at such enormous expense and depends on the most incredible technology (CERN etc) that it is not necessarily "progress" for humanity any more than religion or art or anything else with a purpose is. Would science contribute more to "human progress" by knowing when to stop? <br /><br />Perhaps scientists can discover how to generate the big bang and provide enough energy to sustain mankind at present birth-rate for a million years. Perhaps. [Pause for respect. Pause for thought about the implications. And possible unintended consequences.] But what will mankind itself become? [Is that life real or artificial?] C P Snow in "The Two Cultures" suggests that "scientific progress", the theoretical variety, has no interest in "social" considerations like that. <br /><br />The "best minds" scientists may be. Like the best sportsmen, with complex technology and vast support staff, they are getting incomprehensibly better all the time. For global fame and trophies, or for the pure achievement? Maybe either, but even so, what an expensive vanity. Since the Atom Bomb, I don't think scientists should be excused all social responsibility in the name of "scientific progress". At least sport makes people happy. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7974406176404624210.post-15332032193682484802013-05-10T03:21:25.148-07:002013-05-10T03:21:25.148-07:00Again, you seem to have a fundamental difficulty w...Again, you seem to have a fundamental difficulty with understanding that each theory contains the previous theory as a limit case. So in a very precise sense, physics is "progressing" towards a single goal. 600 years ago, the "physics" wasn't even logically correct let alone consistent with experiment. After Newton, we got a physics that explained day to day life with precise numerical accuracy. You'd have to go to objects the size of the sun, speeds close to the speed of light or sizes comparable to an atom to find discrepancies. Now you'd have to go to objects the density of black holes and sub-sub-sub atomic particles to find issues with the current theories.<br /><br />400 yrs ago, a bit of thought and an apple could disprove the theories of the day. Today if you can find error in the Standard Model, global fame and Nobel Prize await you. <br /><br />BTW Ptolemy's model of the solar system was known to have problems before Ptolemy lived. 30 seconds thought shows Aristotle's claim that heavier objects hit the ground faster is false. Their models survived for the same reason Lysenko's models did and it aint because they were equally credibleDanny Of Arabianoreply@blogger.com