Re: Experimental verification of the relativity theory

[Hugh Haskell <hhaskell@MINDSPRING.COM>]

At 8:52 -0700 4/29/03, John Mallinckrodt wrote:
> There is a critically  important aesthetic aspect of science at work
> here.  We NEVER "prove" ANYTHING about WHY the real world does what
> it does in an experimental science like physics.  Instead, we seek
> "simple" models of reality that have "wide ranges of applicability"
> and that make new, hopefully counterintuitive or previously
> unsuspected predictions.   Thus, the attractiveness of a premise is
> in some direct proportion to 1) its simplicity, 2) the range of
> physical phenomena it "explains", and 3) the degree to which its
> validated predictions run counter to our previous intuitions.
You can probably imagine the incredulous look on the faces of people
who are not familiar with science when I make the bald-faced
statement to them that, "In physics we *never* prove anything. The
best we can hope for is to provide compelling evidence for an idea or
concept." Most people have spent their lives listening to news
reports and even scientists themselves tossing the word "proof"
around with reckless abandon, and when I try to burst the bubble thus
created, I receive, not surprisingly I guess, some degree of
resistance.

Hugh
--

Hugh Haskell
<mailto:haskell@ncssm.edu>
<mailto:hhaskell@mindspring.com>

(919) 467-7610

Never ask someone what computer they use. If they use a Mac, they
will tell you. If not, why embarrass them?
                       --Douglas Adams
******************************************************