From: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl   
      
   Richard Livingston  wrote:   
      
   > What you are really debating is the process of science.  In order to do   
   > anything we must have some framework of ideas we are working with, that   
   > we assume are valid.  In order for  alarge group of scientist to work   
   > together they must all talk the same "language", i.e. have the same   
   > framework of assumed theory.  Otherwise we are debating kinetic energy   
   > vs phlogiston.  That just doesn't work.   
   >   
   > Just because we have an assumed theoretical framework doesn't mean that   
   > it is correct and cast in concrete, only that it is the current best   
   > understanding.  As more experiments are performed and more physical   
   > facts revealed we may come to realize that some aspect of our assumed   
   > theoretical framework is not quite correct.  Or someone may come up with   
   > a different framework that is compelling enough that everyone adopts it.   
   >  Examples include quantum mechanics, relativity, Maxwell's Equations,   
   > Newton's Laws, etc.   
   >   
   > It is the task of the revolutionary to convince the mainstream consensus   
   > that the new idea is better.  That is usually a bit hard because so many   
   > people become emotionally invested in the consensus framework, but if   
   > the new idea truely has value and is supported by experimental evidence   
   > than it will eventually prevail.   
      
   Well, no, not really.   
   We were discussing measurement, at the limits of what can be measured.   
   These are very practical matters,   
   and even to philosophers there are limits   
   to how much you can philosophise on counting fringes,   
   or weighing blocks of metal.   
   This really is expert territory.   
      
   Apart from that, it is noticable, at least to me,   
   that the great philosoper-kings of science,   
   such as Popper, Kuhn, Lakatos, and so on   
   are becoming a thing of the past too.   
   And their exemplars to philosophise about,   
   Galileo, Newton, Einstein etc. are even farther removed from us.   
      
   As to for new wannabee revolutionaries,   
   there has been a noticeable scarcity of succesful ones.   
   There is no shortage of magnificent schemes,   
   such as (super)string theories/landscapes,   
   but they have all bogged down in self-generated problems,   
   and failed to deliver the goods. No GUT or TOE in sight,   
   not even an idea of why \alpha has the value it has.   
      
   All there is on offer are multiverses and anthropic principles,   
   and philosophising about it that boils down to   
   'the grapes hang too high, and they are probably sour anyway',   
   so we really shouln't even imagine that they exist at all,   
      
   Jan   
      
   --   
   Judged by the ordinary criteria of uniqueness and elegance, String   
   Theory has gone from being Beauty to being the Beast. And yet the more I   
   think about this unfortunate history, the more reason I think there is   
   to believe that String Theory is the answer.       (Leonard Susskind)   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)