553
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 107:
Line 107: + + + + + + +
→Newton’s theory invalid
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 Third, I cited Popper to show that Freud was never scientific, not that it was superceded by another theory.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)
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 Third, I cited Popper to show that Freud was never scientific, not that it was superceded by another theory.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)
:This is why I asked you about this issue, because we have been over this before. If philosophers of science are valid on what is science then my support for a claim which is well enough known to be true that it doesn’t really need a reference is a valid one. I think the reference is as valid as you use of Popper (If not more so, since Putnam builds on Popper’s wok and is, probably, closer to the truth than Popper was).
:Let me respond point by point.
:To your first point: Putnam is clear Newton has been falsified, his theories are no longer good science—it is irrelevant that they were good science—Aristotle’s claims about biology were good science when he made them, and to some extent they can still be used successfully today but we would not say they are good science. Successful use is not the same as good science. Newton’s claims do (and did) not accurately predict the new data that they should have been able to predict if the theory was correct, they are no longer valid science—sure they work and sure they still predict some behaviors, but they do not predict all motion as he clamed they did.
:To your second point: that is not Putnam’s point at all. Putnam is describing the process by which formerly valid scientific theories are replaced—Newton’s theory is an excellent case study of this. First a theory is formulated, it describes the available data. If successful it predicts new data. Then, data begins to be collected that falsifies the theory. But, the theory is too well entrenched to be replaced immediately—more data has to be collected before the scientific community accepts that the theory that has worked so well for them is falsified. So, step three is that more data is collected—in small pockets—and the dominant theory is repeatedly modified to account for the new data (think about how complex planetary motion had become before Newton). Finally, a new theory is proposed. It is first rejected because it goes against the old theory and the old theory is too cherished to be easily replaced, then it is discovered that the new theory not only accounts for all the available data (which the old theory couldn’t quite do), it predicts, accurately, new data. So the new theory finally comes to replace the old one as good science.
:Additionally, I take your claim that I have misleadingly quoted Putnam very seriously. You have accused me of academic dishonesty and yet given the language of the sentence (“presumably”) you have not even bothered to check the source I have given. I have clearly explained why my sentence is not misleading, what the source was saying, and that shows why my sentence was a reasonable (concise) statement of the source. I expect, therefore, a public retraction of the false attack against my character.
:To your third point: “X is not scientific” or “X is not science” is a claim that can be supported by experts in the field of philosophy of science according to what you said on the Freud talk page. The reason the philosopher of science rejects a thing as science seems irrelevant. If they know what is and is not science/scientific, it hardly matters whether or not the thing was science we are taking about what is not what was.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 09:36, 29 April 2007 (EDT)