[lit-ideas] Re: No shock that report Einstein "may have been wrong" may have been wrong
- From: Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2011 13:40:11 +0100 (BST)
This question is not well put (though it is a WFF) for several reasons, mostly
because it is tendentious in the alternatives it posits. Science or the growth
of knowledge does not emerge simply as an accumulation of empirical facts
(though this POV might be reflected in asking whether we view
"this discovery [as] simply a new empirical fact about the universe we can add
to
the other ones"); and even if the "new empirical fact" operates to falsify some
theory, its falsificationist impact would not necessarily
"constitute a "paradigm shift" in Kuhn's terms". In other words, the importance
of the finding does not depend on it constituting a 'paradigm shift' in Kuhn's
terms, nor does it not constituting such a shift mean it is simply a new
empirical fact to be added to "other ones".
A less tendentious set of questions might be (a) what is the scientific impact
of a finding of "stuff that runs faster than the speed of light"?; (b) what is
the philosophical impact of such a finding?; (c) are the answers to (a) and (b)
dependent on what philosophy of science we adopt?; (c) if so, what philosophy
of science should we adopt?
Donal
Moving less quickly than the speed of light (thankfully)
London
________________________________
From: Walter C. Okshevsky <wokshevs@xxxxxx>
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, 24 September 2011, 21:06
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: No shock that report Einstein "may have been wrong"
may have been wrong
If we find that there really is stuff that runs faster than the speed of light,
is this discovery simply a new empirical fact about the universe we can add to
the other ones, or does it constitute a "paradigm shift" in Kuhn's terms? And
if the latter, what precisely is it that makes this empirical finding so
fundamental?
Walter O
MUN
Quoting Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>:
> Some famous scientists seem less phlegmatic than Adriano and, indeed, seem to
> have a rather different understanding of the implications of such a finding
> being
>
accepted:-http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/sep/23/physicists-speed-light-violated?intcmp=239
>
>
> 'Brian Cox, a professor of particle physics at the University of
> Manchester, urged caution. "If you've got something travelling faster
> than light, then it's the most profound discovery of the last 100 years
> or more in physics. It's a very, very big deal," he said on BBC 6 Music on
> Friday. "It requires a complete rewriting of our understanding of the
> universe."
> Professor Jim Al-Khalili at the University of Surrey said it was most likely
> that something was skewing the results. "If the neutrinos have broken the
> speed of light, it would overturn a keystone theory from the last
> century of physics. That's possible, but it's far more likely that there is
> an error in the data. So let me put my money where my mouth is: if
> the Cern experiment proves to be correct and neutrinos have broken the
> speed of light, I will eat my boxer shorts on live TV."'
>
> Of course, Cox is discredited easily - for singing "Things Can Only Get
> Better", playing Hannibal Lecter in 'Manhunter' and, worse, accepting a
> professorship at the so-called University of Manchester. Al-Khalili only
> appears on BBC4 and they never do live TV and since 1986 he has owned no
> boxer shorts but sports briefs, so his threat may be dismissed idle.
> Nevertheless their responses ring of realism/falsificationism, in terms of
> philosophy of science, rather than instrumentalism or conventionalism. This
> might be explained by their being proper scientists and not given to
> positions comfortable for an armchair philosophiser.
>
>
> Donal
> London
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Adriano Palma <Palma@xxxxxxxxxx>
> To: "lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Friday, 23 September 2011, 13:28
> Subject: [lit-ideas] shock that report Einstein "may have been wrong" may
> have been wrong
>
>
> what gtr & str require is that there is a maximal speed, whether it is in
> fact C or the speed of neutrinos the theories're neutral about.
> regards
> Â
> Â |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> ξε ν’, γγÎλλειν Λακεδαιμονίοις    ἀ ὅτι
> τ δε
> κείμεθα, το ς κείνων ῥήμασι πειθόμενοι.
> /begin/read__>sig.file: postal address
> palma
> University of KwaZulu-Natal Philosophy
> 3rd floor of Memorial Tower Building
> Howard College Campus
> Durban 4041
> South Africa
> Tel off: [+27] 031 2601591 (sec: Mrs. Yolanda Hordyk) [+27] 031-2602292
> Fax [+27] 031-2603031
> mobile 07 62 36 23 91 calling from overseas +[27] 76 2362391
> EMAIL: palma@xxxxxxxx
> EMAIL: palma@xxxxxxxxxx
> MY OFFICE # IS 290@Mtb
> *only when in Europe*: inst. J. Nicod
> 29 rue d'Ulm
> f-75005 paris france
> email me for details if needed at palma@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> ________
> This e-mail message (and attachments) is confidential, and/or privileged and
> is intended for the
> use of the addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient of this
> e-mail you must not copy,
> distribute, take any action in reliance on it or disclose it to anyone. Any
> confidentiality or
> privilege is not waived or lost by reason of mistaken delivery to you.
> This entity is not responsible for any information not related to the
> business of this entity. If you
> received this e-mail in error please destroy the original and notify the
> sender.
>
> Please find our Email Disclaimer here-->: http://www.ukzn.ac.za/disclaimer
This electronic communication is governed by the terms and conditions at
http://www.mun.ca/cc/policies/electronic_communications_disclaimer_2011.php
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
