Re: [Phys-l] Tutoring Please

[Jack Uretsky <jlu@hep.anl.gov>]

I fail to see whatever point you are trying to make, Jim.  If, as I 
believe, "science" is the effort to explain the phenomena around us, then 
my point is that an "advance" in science can (not must) occur when there 
are new phenomena to be explained.  The time lapse between the occurrence 
of a new phenomenon and its explanation may be a matter of chance.  On the 
other hand, if existing explanations adequately explain existing phenomena 
then there is no need for new explanations.

As for our detailed remarks, see below.

On Mon, 17 Apr 2006, JMGreen wrote:

> Jack suggests the following:
>
> > What happened to make this description of matter insufficient?
> > That is the underlying question, what set of facts is your theory
> > attempting to explain?  You seem to decry the long wait between Empedocles
> > insightful construct and the adoption of the "truth" after 1660.  But
> > there was no need for a more accurate description of matter until
> > quantitative chemistry came along.  What was lacking before (somewhere
> > around) the 17th century was access to the technology that gave rise to
> > precision measuring instruments.
>
> I don't know, Jack.  It seems to me that most of the advances in
> science come by chance.  There  was no real need to go to the Moon --

	What in the world does that have to do with "advances in science"?

> certainly the search for quarks has no technological value.

	a).  I know of no one today who is "searching for quarks".  So 
what?
	b).  "Technological value" is not a measure of whether a new 
theory is a scientific advance.  The measure is whether the theory aids 
our understanding (a term that needs explanation) of an existing 
phenomenon.  As one prominent theorist once phrased it (approximately), "A 
successful theory relates two previously unrelated experiments."

> In fact what do you do all day long.

	Currently I am doing calculations to see if I can successfully 
predict (postdict ?) the results of some recent experiments.  Some of my 
colleagues are predicting event rates at accelerators that are either 
under construction or have been proposed.

> Rather it would appear that the chief
> mission of science if to get the story straight and for two millennia
> people just sat on two theories and stared at each other. Astronomy
> had the same problem.

	That's an unsupportable characterization of two millenia.  I 
suggest that you make definite statements about some of the papers that 
dealt with science during those millenia (including papers dealing with 
astronomy - also a science).  Here's a brief listing of authors to help 
you get started, along with some approximate dates:
	Archimedes - about 250 bce
	T. Lucretius Carus - about 70 bce
	Pliny - 50 c.e.
	Ptolemy - 150 c.e. (but see Plutarch ~100 c.e.)
		(but see Chapter 9 and 10 of Sambursky, cited in my last 
post)
	Brahmagupta - 630 C.E., who reviews earlier work
	Omar Khayyam - 1100 C.E.
	Oresme	1360  (anticipated Galileo and Descarte)

   It is true, it seems,  that there was an 800 year hiatus of science 
activity in Europe.  As Morris Kline puts it (<Matematical Thought from 
Ancient to Modern Times> (Oxford 1972)) "[Christian leaders] opposed pagan 
learning and ridiculed mathematics, astronomy, and physical science."

   I look forward to hearing from you after you have done some more 
homework and are ready to try out your ideas on hoi polloi (us).
					Regards,
						Jack


> Was Aristotle such a powerful figure? -- An unquestioned
> prophet?  Was the Church so overbearing that no one dared think for
> two millennia
>
> And, Folks, what about the other questions???
>
> > > Q1: When did the idea of "earth, air, fire and water" finally go
> > > away?  Who last refers to this philosophy in serious scientific discourse?
>
> Note that this concept is being used seriously in some circles
> TODAY.  Do a Google search!
>
> > > Q2: Why did it take so long, >2000 yrs,  to shake the
> > four-element philosophy?
>
> Aristotle???  The Church???
>
> > > Q3: What other concepts in physics persist to this day even tough we
> > > know they are wrongish?
>
> Note that the concept of "fire" as a substance is still with us.  Others?
>
> JMGreen
>
> _______________________________________________
> Forum for Physics Educators
> Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
> https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l

--
"Trust me.  I have a lot of experience at this."
		General Custer's unremembered message to his men,
		just before leading them into the Little Big Horn Valley