by aristarchusinexile » Thu Apr 30, 2009 2:25 pm
Chris Peterson wrote: No, the observations were accepted as being of good quality. It didn't become usable theory until the observations could be described mathematically, and that math could be used to predict other observations.
Theory is not needed for a Dad to teach his Son how to hit a nail with a hammer .. demonstration is needed.
Chris wrote: No, of course not. It would only mean that the theory was wrong, and people would have kept looking until they found a theory that worked. That happens all the time. Somebody makes an observation, they or somebody else attempts to define the underlying rule, and that is tested. If it works, the rule gains support; if it doesn't, the rule loses support, or is completely rejected. That, in a nutshell, is how modern science works.
Science is not all theory. There are items known as 'facts' and items known as 'demonstrations'. Theory is wonderful from a theoretical point of view .. I have great respect for mine, even if some scientists don't classify them as theories.
At least one biographer has written that if Faraday had been able to do calculus he would never have been able to think imaginatively enough to conceive of what he saw clearly.
That strikes me as a pretty silly observation. Math is just a tool- it has nothing to do one way or the other with how imaginatively somebody can think. If he had been able to do more of his own analysis, it's likely the work would have entered the mainstream faster.[/quote]
Math is great stuff; but how come Faraday's peers with their excellent educations in math couldn't conceive of what he conceived, and derided him for his conceptions? Because their heads were locked on a blackboard instead of roaming space and time. 1 + 1 = 2 doesn't leave room for imagination. Einstein also was said to be poor in math, working outside the normal parametres of scientific thought. Entering the mainstream of science, Chris, means getting around the high, hardened wall of the pride of consensus .. a formidable task even for the mathematically gifted.
[quote="Chris Peterson"] No, the [i]observations[/i] were accepted as being of good quality. It didn't become usable theory until the observations could be described mathematically, and that math could be used to predict other observations.[/quote]
Theory is not needed for a Dad to teach his Son how to hit a nail with a hammer .. demonstration is needed.
[quote="Chris"] No, of course not. It would only mean that the theory was wrong, and people would have kept looking until they found a theory that worked. That happens all the time. Somebody makes an observation, they or somebody else attempts to define the underlying rule, and that is tested. If it works, the rule gains support; if it doesn't, the rule loses support, or is completely rejected. That, in a nutshell, is how modern science works.[/quote]
Science is not all theory. There are items known as 'facts' and items known as 'demonstrations'. Theory is wonderful from a theoretical point of view .. I have great respect for mine, even if some scientists don't classify them as theories.
[quote]At least one biographer has written that if Faraday had been able to do calculus he would never have been able to think imaginatively enough to conceive of what he saw clearly.[/quote]
That strikes me as a pretty silly observation. Math is just a tool- it has nothing to do one way or the other with how imaginatively somebody can think. If he had been able to do more of his own analysis, it's likely the work would have entered the mainstream faster.[/quote]
Math is great stuff; but how come Faraday's peers with their excellent educations in math couldn't conceive of what he conceived, and derided him for his conceptions? Because their heads were locked on a blackboard instead of roaming space and time. 1 + 1 = 2 doesn't leave room for imagination. Einstein also was said to be poor in math, working outside the normal parametres of scientific thought. Entering the mainstream of science, Chris, means getting around the high, hardened wall of the pride of consensus .. a formidable task even for the mathematically gifted.