> On the other hand, if "day and culture" were able to
> distort science, why does science originating in, say,
> pre-Victorian England, still work in post-Mao China?
Because, as I also noted, the endeavor of science (alone among human undertakings) actually takes meaningful steps to minimize the effects by, for example, insisting that observations or experiments be repeatable and reproducible.
Even so, some of the assumptions underlying Newtonian physics, that space could be adequately described using Euclidean geometry and that time progressed at a uniform rate, were clearly "time and place" sorts of assumptions that have measureable, negative, impact on the accuracy of his theory.
What assumptions do we make today?
Of course.
Even so, some of the assumptions underlying Newtonian physics, that space could be adequately described using Euclidean geometry and that time progressed at a uniform rate, were clearly "time and place" sorts of assumptions that have measureable, negative, impact on the accuracy of his theory.
Yup. At present, we regard it as "true as far as it goes." Newton should never be underestimated, even though he modestly stated he was "standing on the shoulders of giants." We now have the advantage of standing on the shoulders of several generations of very intelligent and hard-working people who have been standing on Newton's shoulders.
What assumptions do we make today?
That will be more obvious in fifty or a hundred years.