Siteadmin, Check users, nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
30,650
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 122:
Line 122: + + + + + + + + + + + +
→Newton’s theory invalid: Oh, is it?
:::::You are quite right, I should have said you have accused me of misstating Putnam’s position, as opposed to misquoting (I was loose in my usage there, and if that confusion is all that is keeping you from retracting your attack, I hope I have cleared it up).
:::::You are quite right, I should have said you have accused me of misstating Putnam’s position, as opposed to misquoting (I was loose in my usage there, and if that confusion is all that is keeping you from retracting your attack, I hope I have cleared it up).
:::::However, it is quite clear that you have accused me of academic dishonesty, even if that was not your intent. If I misleadingly referenced a source I am guilty of academic dishonesty, if you are saying that my reference does not support my claim you are attacking my integrity. You have not shown any evidence that you have so much as looked at the source I gave, and yet you say I am misleadingly referencing it. That is a personal attack, and it is unjustified. Please apologize, retract the claim, or support your position.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 16:33, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::However, it is quite clear that you have accused me of academic dishonesty, even if that was not your intent. If I misleadingly referenced a source I am guilty of academic dishonesty, if you are saying that my reference does not support my claim you are attacking my integrity. You have not shown any evidence that you have so much as looked at the source I gave, and yet you say I am misleadingly referencing it. That is a personal attack, and it is unjustified. Please apologize, retract the claim, or support your position.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 16:33, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
Take a chill pill, Reginod. The critique here is over one sentence - it is not about you as a person.
The idea concerns the role of truth and its relation to the scientific method, as well as to how science corrects itself or refines theories.
Let us take a step back and look at the matter at hand:
Are Newton's laws of motion "valid"? Were they invalidated or "disproved" by the Lorentz equations, Einstein's new theories, or [[Quantum physics]]?
Can we say that Newton's Laws apply only to "slow-moving" objects (say, less than 10% of the speed of light)?
There is a philosophical question, as well (perhaps in [[Epistemology]] or [[Methodology]], if you want to get technical). How well do we actually know anything? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:46, 30 April 2007 (EDT)