"...logic reveals what must necessarily be true..."
Only until it's refined by something being proved wrong. Newton had logic on his side and his theory of gravity was obviously true for centuries - until it was proved wrong by Einstein.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
I believe it was only "proven" incomplete and or lacking precision.
A "working model" like Newton's Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica is neither technically "true" or technically "false".
A (scientific) "working model" is judged solely on EFFICACY (its propensity to produce accurate predictions).
It may be a "fiction" but it doesn't matter, as long as it's a "useful and reliable fiction".
Science is no "arbiter of truth" as much as it's a "crucible of EFFICACY".
Efficacy has no relation to factual accuracy, withal.
The theory that Newton proposed to explain why the math worked was factually incorrect, and Einstein's work revealed this. That doesn't mean Einstein's math was more efficacious.
Science doesn't prove efficacy. It disproves theories that cannot be true. That's all it does.
Newton's law has since been superseded by Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity,
but it continues to be used as an excellent approximation of the effects of gravity in most applications.
Relativity is required only when there is a need for extreme accuracy, or when dealing with very strong gravitational fields, such as those found near extremely massive and dense objects, or at small distances (such as Mercury's orbit around the Sun). LINK
Newton wasn't "factually incorrect".
Newton was simply "lacking requisite precision".
What method "proves efficacy"?
Certainly in some cases, but how exactly do you think it does this "disproving"?
It can reveal flaws in a hypothesis, but it does far more than just that.
Newton's Law was not merely superseded in mathematical precision by Einstein. It was utterly disproved. The math explaining orbital mechanics based on Newton's Law is far simpler, and is more efficacious - but less accurate than relativistic maths - because the math is close enough for government work, despite the theory that explained gravity being factually incorrect.
This is exactly the example of science not being used to create efficacy I intended, but that science can only disprove factually incorrect theories. Even though the theory is proved wrong, the math remains useful. It's not right, but it's close enough.
That isn't science. It's engineering.
This seems contradictory.
Please give a specific example of this "factually incorrect" detail.
As far as I can tell, Newton merely produced an equation that is somewhat less precise than Einstein's.
While not a physicist, my understanding is that Newton and his contemporaries interpreted why those equations worked as they do by positing the aether, through which phenomena were able to transit.
Only later did much math reveal that the aether couldn't be air, because that would pool up into atmospheres, and contentious and interminable debate fail perennially to resolve just what the aether actually was.
Finally, relativity did away with the aether completely, and quantum mechanics came up with the vacuum pressure, the quantum foam out of which particles spontaneously erupt, which is the present model of the universe. I don't like probability theory, and can't wait for the next theory to blow it out of the water.
The math just described how forces propagated through the aether, and that conception of reality was provably factually incorrect, even though the math works. Well, works well enough to steer rockets into orbit.
You have my permission to shoot me if I'm wrong.
If you can find me.
Just talk about evidence with these kind of zero facters.
Copy and paste, don't even talk, they will never get it, their minds cannot handle it.
Ok.
Thanks for clearing that up.
Newton's gravitational equation is science (engineering).
Newton's aether hypothesis is merely a hypothesis.
Any perceived "flaws" in the aether hypothesis have no impact on the efficacy of Newton's gravitational equation.
HOWevEr, "a primal substrate" would seem to be a pretty good description of what Einstein calls "SPACETIME" (time and space being the same substance and also being a necessary prerequisite for all other substances).
SPACETIME = AETHER
Science lays the essential groundwork for engineering.
Science has never established "incontrovertible truth".
Science only ever tells us what is the most likely result, and how reliable and durable that result is (hopefully at least 3 Sigma).
I would agree with most of what you point out here, except that I would state the last differently: science only disproves what isn't true, and leaves us to further refine what hasn't yet been disproved by finding ways to disprove it if possible.
science only disproves what isn't [useful and reliable], and leaves us to further refine what hasn't yet been disproved [unreliable] by finding ways to disprove it if possible.
The pursuit of "truth" is the exclusive domain of logic.