Physics of the Classical sort, that had embraced the possibility of final and objective cognition of natural phenomena, had prospered UNTIL objectivity was replaced by a flimsy epistemological relativism I see. So physics has gone into a noticable decline in the last 100 years? Could I ask if you are using carrier pigeons to communicate with me?
I do concede that Newton did not account for certain microscopic phenomena that the instruments of his time could not have perceived. However, to state that his theory is somehow underdetermined in the MACROSCOPIC realm is absolutely improper
Then you are not paying much attention. Newton's theories implied a universe that was a fixed time-space frame, which produced problems he struggled with for years, unsuccessfully. In all of science, there was not a more radical remaking of the largest objects we see with our telescopes in the macro universe than that implied by Einstein's "miniscule" adjustments to Newton.
Mr. donh: I see. So physics has gone into a noticable decline in the last 100 years? Could I ask if you are using carrier pigeons to communicate with me?
Mr. Stolyarov: Much of present technology is based on either Classical fysics, biology (which has remained largely segregated from fysics by the ultra-specialization of both fields), or (in the case of computer-related mechanisms) information theory. Modern fysics has degenerated to empty speculation on an ontological misnomer: "the origin of the universe," and apocalyptic prognoses that would make Nostradamus seem like a healthy realist.
(For the justification behind what may seem odd facets of my spelling, please see "An Objective Filosofy of Linguistics," an attempt to wield scientific systematization precisely where under-determination would have me cower in inaction before the bulwark of stale traditionalism.)
http://www.geocities.com/rationalargumentator/filosofyoflinguistics.html Mr. donh: "Newton's theories implied a universe that was a fixed time-space frame..."
Mr. Stolyarov: Of course the universe has a fixed time-space frame! That is EXACTLY the sort of MACROSCOPIC generalization that cannot be refuted if relativity and quantum mechanics are kept within proper bounds justified by the evidence.
Any denial of the absolutism of space and time amounts to the claim that A does not equal A, and that we cannot know anything, even the most fundamental media that surround us. It is a violation of the very root of logic, without which logic is possible.
I shall respond further in the near future.