Quote:
Originally Posted by James Putnam
I have to say that I do not know what you mean by fundamentalism.
|
When I wrote that, I paused and thought that it might be interpreted as the word "fundamentalism" is usually used. I should have changed it in hindsight. What I meant is that you seem to have issue with scientists labeling particles as fundamental.
Quote:
|
It is not the fundamental existence and behavior of particles that is being challenged. Empirical science will continue to enlighten us. The challenge is to refute claims by scientifically minded people that theory represents reality. Yes we have Einstein's theories. His theories were designed to agree with empirical evidence. Therefore, it is not necessarily surprising that GPS works. What is surprising is that the success of GPS is used to insist that Einstein's theories are therefore correct.
|
I believe you've got it backwards, James.
When Einstein presented his theories, it was not a done deal. Many scientists did not agree with what he was presenting and asked for empirical proof. Scientists predicted that if his theory was right, we would observe light being 'bent' by gravity. And indeed it is. Many, many tests have been executed and all have failed to falsify the theories. Nonetheless, the theories of Einstein demand constant revision (the mass-density problem).
Quote:
|
Do you believe that time dilation is a fact? In the face of the supporting empirical evidence, would it be unscientific to challenge the theory of time dilation?
|
(I've already provided an answer for your first question...several posts back)
In the face of supporting empirical evidence, it would be scientific to challenge the theory of time dilation. Such evidence does not exist, though. But yet, the Standard Model is at odds with Relativity, in regards to gravitation. The unification is currently being sought. These things take time. Science is not
close-minded unreasonably dismissive because of time constraints. Baby steps...
