1,792
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 102:
Line 102: + + + + +
you now say that Newtonian has been "falsified" and is "no longer scientifically valid"
in order to agree with the cited material
in order to agree with the cited material
:'Newton formulated the classical theories of mechanics and optics and invented calculus Eric Weisstein's World of Math years before Leibniz. However, he did not publish his work on calculus Eric Weisstein's World of Math until afterward Leibniz had published his. This led to a bitter priority dispute between English and continental mathematicians which persisted for decades, to the detriment of all concerned.'[[http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/biography/Newton.html]]
:'Newton formulated the classical theories of mechanics and optics and invented calculus Eric Weisstein's World of Math years before Leibniz. However, he did not publish his work on calculus Eric Weisstein's World of Math until afterward Leibniz had published his. This led to a bitter priority dispute between English and continental mathematicians which persisted for decades, to the detriment of all concerned.'[[http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/biography/Newton.html]]
== Newton’s theory invalid ==
Reginod, I notice that you now say that Newtonian has been "falsified" and is "no longer scientifically valid", based on some opinion of some philosopher. It appears that you justify this based on me citing a philosopher saying that Freud's work was unscientific.
I don't agree with this. First, Freud's work really was unscientific. Newton's work was scientific, and continues to be used successfully by scientists today. Second, Putnam was presumably making some point about how one theory was more accurate than another, but your sentence is very misleading. Third, I cited Popper to show that Freud was never scientific, not that it was superceded by another theory. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 19:31, 28 April 2007 (EDT)