Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: AmishDude

>>You must admit, though, that scientists use the language of metaphysical certainty to express results. At best, it is “the best guess we can come up with so far.”<<

Yes. That is particularly true of people who have not had a super high level of science education and/or are insecure about their own knowledge.

A perfect example would be the equation F=ma (force = mass * acceleration). You’ll see that presented as a fact but its only true if the mass doesn’t change (i.e. it doesn’t work for rockets) so there is a more complex form. And the more complex form is only approximately true because it doesn’t take relativity into consideration. But does a 6th grade science teacher know that, maybe and maybe not.


164 posted on 05/14/2007 9:17:52 AM PDT by gondramB (God only has ten rules, uncle Hank, and he has a much bigger house.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies ]


To: gondramB

It’s worse. Rockets are just calculus. To use the inaccurate language of physics, you just have an element of mass and integrate. I.e., dF=a*dm.

Newton was wrong.

He didn’t account for relativistic effects. Now, a physicist would say that it’s such a minor effect that it doesn’t matter, but if you want to use the language of mathematics, you have to have the standards of mathematics.

The physicists know the difference, but I shudder at the softer scientists who say “this evidence proves...”.


185 posted on 05/14/2007 1:54:26 PM PDT by AmishDude (It doesn't matter whom you vote for. It matters who takes office.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson