Johannes Kepler – A Mysterious Cosmographist

I enjoyed reading your article.
In those times there were basic instruments for measurements for angles and for time needed for rotations. There were no cars and power Plants so sky`s use to be clean. I read Kepler and copernicus they use to take heavenly measurements every day and enter in diaries. They use to keep diaries which will give them data for alomst 50 years. The heavenlty bodies must be mesmarising these men otherwise difficult to be so punctual. As you have said Kepler found as a great observer of his data recoreded overs decades to arrive at elliptical motion. It just came to mind due to pollouted skys now we can not record such things by human eyes. Progress has given lot but we loose also some things.
Again enjoyed your article.

Re: # 1
It is very interestong to draw ellipctical shape. First you put two large headed pins on thick paper, ( surface of any box package works well. ) These pins will act as focci. Take a thread and wound around one pin and then press that pin down. Put other pin 300 mm away. Take thread about any where between 500 to 600 mm long. ( just that much so it can draw nice size. Attach thread end to pin end. Then take a sharpend pencil. Move tread with pencil so the strings are tight. Move all around keeping thread tight and you get wonderful shape of mption of planets. If you are teaching about ellicps this way drawing clearly shows the condition for motion , ie point on elli.( sum of distance from focci is always same./).

If one is working with young it helps them lot if we give things they can do and varify. One things students liked was calculating perimerer of circle. Take a circular biscuit box, and measure diameter, then one that and measure perimeter which is about 3 times diameter. Then tell about pi (22/7). They appreciate the power of measurement and geometry.

Some time its hard to realiase how planets are kept in order by gravity between them.
Following little things if expained properly by experiment children may like.. Take a weak string and bind piece or ball. Start rotating initially slowly and tension developed will keep ball in proper position. Then increase speed of ball rotation and string breaks abd ball flies away. The centrifugal force is trying take away ball but string/tension towards center of rotation keep in defined path. One can explain in sky there is no string but that string which is invisible is gravitional pull and suns gravity pulls planets to move in specific way. Many students have told me they understand better when thought like that.

Mr. Gill please excuse me for little inrelated things.
Thanks, have good day.

[...]

---

Kepler broke radically from authority and tradition by utilizing the ellipse (as opposed to a composition of circular motions) and non-uniform velocities. He hewed firmly to the position that scientific investigations are independent of all philosophical and theological doctrines, that mathematical considerations alone should determine the wisdom of any hypothesis, and that the hypotheses and deductions from these must stand the test of empirical confirmation. (Morris Kline in “Mathematical Thought from Ancient to Modern Times, p.245)

---

[...]


It is a huge intellectual mistake to think as if scientific investigations are independent of Philosophical or even Theological ideas or doctrines. Kepler himself had given supporting mathematical explanations to some of already existing philosophical views of Copernicus as well. Micheal Farady is good example who had found the principle of Dynmo despite the fact that he was even uneducated of mathematics. He was a poor book binder and he had studied somewhat about Electricity out of those books which he used to bind. Even Einstien was not any expert mathematician at the time when he got popularity. He had learnt detailed mathematics at the time when he was already popular. Contemporary science is very much indebted to ancient as well as modern Philosophy. Both ancient and modern Philosophies are very much indebted to theologies. Science absorbs all the benefits out of theologies and philosophies in such a way that science itself remains unaware of this absorption. Science is very useful because it has invented many useful things. But science is ignorant because it is unaware about its own sources of origin.

Regards!

Re: # 3

[...] -- mathematical considerations alone should determine the wisdom of any hypothesis, and that the hypotheses and deductions from these must stand the test of empirical confirmation. (Morris Kline in “Mathematical Thought from Ancient to Modern Times, p.245) -- [...]

Science is very much confused. If only mathematical considerations should determine the wisdom of any hypothesis then how scientific investigation can be independent of all the philosophies and theologies...??? See that the proposed function of mathematics is only to determine the wisdom of any hypothesis. Also note that ``hypothesis`` itself has not come from mathematics because function of mathematics is only to determine the wisdom of an already available hypothesis. If ``hypothesis`` has not come from ``mathematics``, then it might have come from sources other than mathematics. So what can be the sources other than mathematics...??? Obviously, other sources can be philosophies or even theologies. But if hypothesis itself can come from philosophies and theologies, then how scientific investigation can be independent of all the philosophies and theologies...??? Is the generation of hypothesis is not the part of scientific investigation process...???

Secondly, the quoted statement is saying that ``hypothesis`` and ``deductions`` therefrom must stand the empirical test. Now I ask to please try to find where the ``mathematics`` has gone from all the scientific investigation process. See that ``hypothesis`` itself had not come from mathematics. Secondly ``deductions out of hypothesis`` may not involve any mathematics because meaning of ``deduction`` is the result of ``deductive logic`` and not the result of ``mathematics``.

True logical meanings of this quoted statement itself are that hypothesis must come from sources other than mathematics i.e. may be philosophies or even theologies. Then this hypothesis should go through the process of ``deduction`` (i.e. logic and not mathematics). Then that original hypothesis and results of ``deduction`` should go through the process of empirical test. Now my question is that where mathematics has gone from all this process...???.

True process is actually something like this: At first theologies invoke philoisophies. Then philosophies give birth to many hypothesis. Some of the hypothesises (i.e. not all) may involve quantitative relationships between interrelated variables. Mathematics has to deal only with such hypothesis which involve quantitative relationships between variables. For example, Newton`s first law of motion is such a hypothesis which does not involve aqny quantitative relationship between variables. So there is no application of mathematics in first law of motion. But second law of motion involves quantitative and ``measured`` study of interrelated variables. So only here mathematics comes to scene in the form of equation: ``F = ma``.

Stage of empirical verification may come before works of mathematics or can come after it. For example ``rate of acceleration`` is not possible to calculate without any empirical test. So for the case of second law of motion, empirical verification stage might have come before the mathematical works. The next stage should be the ``logical interpretation`` of results of empirical test. This stage is badly missing in contemporary scientific research procedures.

Mathematics is just a portion of logic. It is the logic of numbers and measurements. Science bb is ignoring logic and emphasizing on mathematics. Only a part is like the whole for this science.

Regards!

The tenor of Khuram’s interacts is reminiscent of the intellectual conflicts between the postmodernists and the hard-core scientists. This conflict culminated in the so-called “Science Wars” that raged during the 1990s (the wars provoked Sokal to publish his paper in Social Text, which came to be known as Sokal’s Hoax). I thought this conflict was put aside because I didn’t come across any significant works on this issue recently.

This conflict became prominent after Thomas Kuhn published his “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” in 1962. One of the premises in his book was that the evolution of physical science was sociologically determined. It generated a great deal of debate and the scientists felt as if the foundation stone of physical science had been knocked out by a false postulation. There has been so much written on this issue (for and con,) that it is pointless for me to discuss it here (I did publish an article with a title “Is Physical Science Socially Constructed?” on Chowk, February 21, 2004).

Whether religion, culture, theology, etc. play any significant role in the development of science has been debated to death particularly in the literature that was published after 1960. How does it affect the work of a scientist? Let me quote from “Dreams of a Final Theory (p.190)” by Nobel Laureate Steven Weinberg in the following:

“These radical critics of science seem to be having little or no effect on the scientists themselves I do not know of any working scientist who takes them seriously…..In the end this issue will disappear. Modern scientific methods and knowledge have rapidly diffused to non-Western countries like Japan and India and indeed are spreading throughout the world, we can look forward to the day when science can no longer be identified with the West but is seen as the shared possession of humankind.”

Personally, I believe that science is not affected one way or the other by religious beliefs of a scientist or by cultural mores of any particular society. Professor Abdus Salam shared his Nobel Prize with Steven Weinberg and Sheldon Glashow for unification of the weak and electromagnetic forces. Abdus Salam was a Muslim of Ahmadi persuasion and deeply religious. He frequently quoted from Quran in his lectures and speeches. Weinberg and Sheldon are atheists of Jewish lineage. A scientist belonging to a particular religion and culture does not have any definite advantage in doing science over other different religious or atheistic scientists,

During the time that the science wars were raging, a movement to “Islamize” science began in the Muslim world. It seems to have died now not because science has been Islamized but perhaps because the whole thing was a futile activity.

There is a chapter in the afore-quoted Dreams of a Final Theory, which has a title of “Against Philosophy.” Weinberg does recognize the positive role that philosophy has played in science but again philosophy is not science. He wrote (pp.166-167):

“Physicists get so much help from subjective and often vague aesthetic judgments that it might be expected that we would be helped also by philosophy out of which after all our science evolved. Can philosophy give us any guidance toward a final theory? ….The insights of philosophers have occasionally benefited physicists, but generally in a negative fashion – by protecting them from the preconceptions of other philosophers.

I do not want to draw the lesson here that physics is best done without preconceptions. At any one moment there are so many things that might be done, so many accepted principles that might be challenged, that without some guidance from our preconceptions one could do nothing at all. It is just that philosophical principles have not generally provided us with the right preconceptions. In our hunt for the final theory, physicists are more like hounds than hawks; we have become good at sniffing around on the ground for traces of the beauty we expect in the laws of nature, but we do not seem to be able to see the path to the truth from the heights of philosophy.”

In the end, it is a matter of individual choice, I think. If one wants to believe that philosophy (and religion, theology and culture) plays a dominant role in science, or science is a subservient discipline, I do not have any problem with it. But I don’t believe in this conjecture.

Mohammad Gill

ahmedmadani:

Thanks for your appreciation.

Mohammad Gill

Gill Sahib, surely I shall read your referred article just after few hours as at the moment I am having time to discuss only one point.

[...] -- ``Can philosophy give us any guidance toward a final theory? -- [...]

My counter question is that why philosophy should guide science for any ultimate reality...???

Science has taken even the idea of ``final theory`` out of philosophy. This ``final theory`` was a task of philosophy. Science itself could not know any such thing like ``final theory`` at its own. But I am no advocate of the idea of a ``final theory`` ... perhaps because I feel I am not able enough to find or even understand any final theory.

The only final theory is that human knowledge is evolutionary in nature. It always shall remain ``evolutionary`` for all the times to come. Humans do find certain important realities from time to time. It also happens that humans feel as if they have learnt all the possible reality when they just understand some new important fact. This is a process of curiosity and satisfaction. Soon after a great satisfaction, they may find themselves totally helpless before many other intellectual problems. The final theory is that this process cannot be stopped. Humans can never find the real ultimate reality. But there urge for knowing the ultimate reality does take them from the state of lesser and inferior knowledge to the state of more and superior knowledge. Humans can move from little to broad knowledge. ``Science`` is not ``scientific`` because now it is running after ultimate reality. Now philosophy is more scientific because philosophy knows that only possible achievement is just the movement from the state of lesser and inferior knowledge to the state of more and superior knowledge.

I do know that still there are some philosophers who are running after the illusion of ``ultimate reality``. I am not representing or advocating them. But I am not against them as it is possible that they may really move from their inferior state of knowledge to some superior state of knowledge. Recently I visited a science-cum-philosophy website. Those who are running the website are claiming that they have found the ultimate reality which is that only space exists in the universe. All the space is composed of ``waves``. And matter is formed wherever there is junction of ``in-waves`` and ``out-waves``. The reason for why they are trying to find ultimate reality is that they want that human societies should be based in accordance with the order of nature. I did criticize their basic idea but I avoided to tell them that their claim of having found the ultimate reality is just wrong. What if even we do know that one particular thing is the reality? We do not even know what is the structure of ideas inside of our minds. We do not know where our inner-selves are located in our bodies. We do not know just how do our bodies obey our wills etc. etc. And remember that these are not the problems of science. Science is having a very little vision. Science deals only with those problems which could be ``empirically`` tested. I had pointed out in another of my interacts even such questions as ``whether dreams exist or not?``, are also outside the scope of science. Science cannot tell us whether dreams exist or not because there can be no empirical test for the existence of dreams. We can see dreams only when our eyes are closed and when we lose our normal senses. Since no ``empirical`` test can be performed with closed eyes combined with state of lost senses, so science cannot even tell whether dreams exist or not. Why philosophy should guide this science about any ``ultimate reality`` when science proves it self to be so much incompetent that it cannot even affirm or negate the existence of dreams?

Regards!

khuram:

I suspect that you have missed the sense of “final theory” to which Weinberg referred. He was talking of the final theory which some scientists have euphemistically called “Theory of Everything” (TOE) and which more specifically is the unified theory or theory of unification of all the fundamental forces. The string theorists (and many non-string physicists also) are trying to develop a theory which will combine all the fundamental forces.

Maxwell’s electro-magnetic theory unified electric and magnetic forces and Salam-Weinberg’s electroweak theory has combined the weak nuclear force with the electro-magnetic force. The strong nuclear force was combined with the electroweak force by the Grand Unified Theories (GUT). The remaining stumbling block is that of unifying gravity with a GUT theory. So Weinberg’s reference to final theory was very specific and not to any philosophical hypothesis of ultimate reality.

I respect genuine knowledge whether it is scientific or philosophical. Philosophers are questioning the nature of scientific theories in a positive way. Karl Popper’s theory of falsification was a step in this direction. Weinberg made a point that even those physicists who do not care much about Popper’s falsification theory are not handicapped in any fundamental way to do their physics. Contributions of some of such scientists are noteworthy.

While all credible scientific theories are logically consistent, logic by itself has seldom, if ever, discovered any scientific theory.

Be well,

Mohammad Gill

[...] -- While all credible scientific theories are logically consistent, logic by itself has seldom, if ever, discovered any scientific theory. -- [...]

It is a super false idea. I already had discussed the complete logical development of first law of motion by Newton in one of my interacts on the article about ``String Theory``. Here I am copying below the relevant portion of that interact:

In the times of Galileo, Johannes Kapler and Newton etc. when Old Greek ``rational`` (i.e. pure rational ... as supposed) theories were found to be wrong as per experimental tests, then sensory or empirical data/ information got superiority over the so-called pure rational knowledge. Then scientists started degrading all the forms of rational knowledge because no one bothered to see that actually rational knowledge was not any entity which could exist independently of empirical knowledge. General idea was that empirical knowledge and rational knowledge were having separate and independent sources of origin and that now onwards, only empirical knowledge became standard of truth. Newton`s laws of Motion declared to be Empirical Laws whereas fact is that let`s say First Law of Motion is a complete Logical Law. My question is that what is the empirical proof that an object shall always remain in the state of rest until and unless it is impressed upon by a net positive force? What could be the ``empirical proof`` for such a law? Obviously such a law can only be empirically tested in the time-scale of infinite period because the thing to be empirically confirmed here is that the object shall ALWAYS remain in the state of rest. So the complete empirical test can be performed only over an infinite period of time. Not only that this law cannot be empirically tested, it is also not the product of any empirical test but is the product of Logic. In order to develop this law, Newton himself had not conducted any experiment. This law happened to be the Logical Conclusion of those experiments which Galileo had performed on inclined plane. Galileo had found that a ball, in a double inclined plane, when moves downwards on downside plane, it accelerates. And the same ball when moves upside, on the other upside plane, the ball decelerates. Galileo reached to its logical conclusion that if ball is neither moving downside, nor upside; then it would neither accelerate nor decelerate. The logical conclusion, to which Newton reached was that if a ball is neither accelerating nor decelerating, then the ball shall be in the state of rest or uniform speed. And since Newton knew the concept of Force of Gravitation, so he drew another logical conclusion that downside acceleration and upside deceleration of ball was due to net downside force and net upside force respectively. The next logical conclusion was that in the absence of any ``force``, the ball shall neither accelerate nor decelerate. And the other logical conclusion was that a ball, if neither accelerating, nor decelerating, it means that either it is at rest or it is moving with uniform speed. And the final logical conclusion was a simple generalization that any object, as long as it is not impressed by any net positive force, it shall either remain in the state of rest, or shall remain in continuous straight and uniform speed motion.

So despite this complete logical construction, this law is still considered to be an ``Empirical Law``, and therefore, a part of ``Empirical Knowledge``. Any ``Rational Knowledge`` is still disregarded, as scientists believe in the erroneous idea of some clash between empirical and rational knowledge.

So previously, I had shown that first law of motion was the product of ``LOGIC``. Now I try to show that second law also had come from the door of LOGIC. As first law was stating the logical results of the complete absence of force, second law just stated the logical results of presence of force. In the first law, the logical result of the absence of force was non-acceleration. This non-acceleration had two logical states which were (i) complete rest and; (ii) uniform velocity motion.

Now come to see what was the second law in fact. Second law just had introduced the element of ``force`` in the same situation of first law. In the first law, the absence of force had given the result of ``non-acceleration``. So the LOGICAL result in second law, of the ``presence`` of ``force`` was the ``acceleration``. Second law of motion was outcome of just mere logic up to this point. The next problem was that ok there had to be ``acceleration`` in the presence of ``force`` ... but how much acceleration...??? The issue of ``how much acceleration`` required experimental works as well as application of mathematics. For the development of second law of motion, logic played primary role whereas experimental and mathematical works had secondary function.

Perhaps science is having complete pragmatic self-conception, which may be useful but may not be acceptable to Philosophy because of being inconsistent with facts. Science only sees if ``outcome`` is useful or profitable or not. Science focuses only on end results and doesn`t bother to see or evaluate the sources of origin of scientific theories.

Was Mendeleev`s ``Periodic Table`` not the outcome of logic? He had ordered that table on the basis of ``consitent`` or ``ordered`` properties exibited by certain elements. Is logic not the name of consistency and order? He had placed even some unknown elements of his time in their proper order. The act of placing an unknown thing on its right place was a logical act and cannot be regarded as ``empirical`` act in any way. It is just like as premises come from sense experience whereas right logical conclusion is formed without direct sense perception.

Even the John Dolton`s theory of atom was also logical. Original theory of atom was just the logical answer to such questions as why only specific quantitative combination of different elements result in chemical compounds.

Uptill now I have discussed only the role of deductive logic in the process of development of scientific theories. Actually role of deductive logic is really limited. Most ideas or scientific theories are actually the outcome of ANOLOGY, which is a form of inductive logic. To understand the role of analogy, you will have to go through my following article in complete:

Compound Ideas and Imaginations and how they differ with Invalid Ideas.

In my opinion, Newton had reached the concept of Gravitational Force of earth through the process of analogy. If anyone asks, I can write about it in details as well. Coulumb`s law is very much similar to Newton`s Law of Gravitation. Role of analogy cannot be overlooked in the process of development of Coulumb`s law because analogy works on the basis of ``similarity`` between processes or phenomena or things. Many of the theories of Einstien were ``analogical`` in nature like the idea of ``similarity`` between field of gravitation and an accelerated system. The idea that if accelerated system could bent ray of light then a gravitational field also could bent ray of light, was also analogical idea. And remember that it was this idea which was experimentally verified to be true in 1919 during the time of a solar eclips.

I am having the opinion that more than 95% new ideas come through the process of analogy, i.e. a form of LOGIC. I have given link to my related article for its details.

And secondly, I really used the term ``final theory`` in its usual philosophical sense. I have sympathies with the efforts for finding the unified structure of basic forces of nature. Philosophy can be helpful for this task as well if philosophy is given its due respect.

Regards!

khuram:

There is confusion in your thinking. Science is constructed both by rational arguments and empirical evidence. Science needs both of them. Pure rationalism can (and frequently does) lead to more than one rational conjecture, hypothesis, or philosophical theory, if you will, but science uses only that theory which is supported by empirical evidence. So there is no conflict between science and philosophy on that account.

You wrote, “..let’s say the First Law of Motion is a complete Logical Law.” Of course it is. It’s not only the first law of motion, all scientific theories are logically consistent. But if you are implying that pure rationalism led Newton to formulate his laws, you’re wrong.

You must also understand that scientific theories are not eternal (same is true of philosophy). All scientific theories are temporal and empirically verified. Newton’s laws of motion are replaced by theory of relativity when the motions of extremely fast objects (moving near the speed of light) are considered. However, Newton’s laws of motion are still valid for our planet. It is also not important if Newton did any experiment himself or simply used the data of others. As long as his laws conform to empirical evidence, they are good. There is a breed of scientists who are called theoretical scientists. They don’t need to go to laboratories to collect data, they use data collected by others. Einstein was a theoretical scientist and so was Salam and are Weinberg, Glashow, etc. Notably, the string theorists are all theoretical scientists.

You also wrote that “obviously such a law can only be empirically tested in the time-scale of infinite period…” No, sir. A scientific theory that is being constructed at present time needs only to be verified by the data that is available now. If the future data falsifies it, it will be revised and updated.

The rest of your discussion is repetitive. There is no real conflict between rationalism and empiricism in science. A purely rational theory can be wrong but if it is verified by empirical evidence, it is accepted as a valid scientific theory – not an eternal one but a temporal one. It’s good as long as it is not falsified.

Be well,

Mohammad Gill

Freethinker,

Many thanks for your articles. You bring about an unknown, humane side of these great scientists which makes a very interesting read,

Rgds,
Avkrishna

A very interesting discussion going on between khuram and freethinker. khuram seems to be making some very good points. Unfortunately, his style is rather confusing and convoluted and I can`t be sure he is saying what I think he is saying.

So, let me try to make some similar points.

1. I think khuram is saying (if he is not then I am!) that scientific laws can actually be derived logically from basic definition of terms. Once, we define terms like rest, motion, velocity, distance, force, mass etc. then the laws follow logically from them. This may not have been historically so, but it is logically so. This raises the questions about the definitions themselves. How are they considered as true?

2. This leads to other question that Mr Gill mentioned. Is science socially detemined? Nobody can claim that a particlular theory is socially determined becuase each theory simply follows logically from certain basic definition of terms. It would be like saying that 2+2 =4 is socially determined. But are the definitions socially detemined? Why do we consider as true these specific mechanistic definitions of mass, energy etc. This has not been always the case. Did the social changes taking place in 17th century Europe have anything do with the emergence of the mechanistic world-view. This is a valid question and worth exploring.

There is confusion in your thinking. Science is constructed both by rational arguments and empirical evidence. Science needs both of them. Pure rationalism can (and frequently does) lead to more than one rational conjecture, hypothesis, or philosophical theory, if you will, but science uses only that theory which is supported by empirical evidence. So there is no conflict between science and philosophy on that account.

I thought that I was talking with a person to whom I already discussed the issues of rational vs empirical. I already had stated in one of my previous intereacts the following true procedure that science should follow:

Sensory Information>>Logical Conclusions>>Empirical Verification>>Logical Interpretation of Empirical Test

I also had explained that I am actually against pure rationalism. You can read my interacts on your article about strings theory. I never say that science can be developed from only logic. What I say is that logic is integral part of science, like empirical evidence is also integral part of science.

Contemporary science disregards logic and do not treat logic as integral part of science. Proof is that theory of logic is not the part of syllabus of science at any level.

You say there is no conflict between science and philosophy on this issue. I say there is conflict. Why science disregards theory of logic and why discriminate logic by not making it the part of its syllabus?

You wrote, “..let’s say the First Law of Motion is a complete Logical Law.” Of course it is. It’s not only the first law of motion, all scientific theories are logically consistent. But if you are implying that pure rationalism led Newton to formulate his laws, you’re wrong.

Actually a functional human mind works logically. I remember I could write logical assertions in those times also when I knew nothing of the theory of logic. I still have premises-conclusion patterned my own writings of that time. Scientists are also sane persons in all respects. They may not formally know the theory of logic but unconsciously, they do keep scientific theories in proper logical order. I do not say that scientists are ``illogical``. If I thought so then why I tried to show in the previous interact that many many theories of science are the product of logic? Scientists are logical. I accept this. But they are logical just unformally and unconsciously. They do not know that they act, behave and think in accordence with the principles of logic. They disregard theory of logic on the basis of certain intellectual mistakes.

And I do not think that first law was the product of ``pure rationalism``.? I already had explained the difference between ``pure rationalism`` and ``true rationalism``. Pure rationalim is axiom based deductive process whereas ``True rationalism`` takes input from empirical data. Newton was ``True Rationalist`` and NOT ``Pure Rationalist``. And first law was the result of ``True Rationalm`` and was not the product of ``Pure Rationalism`` or even ``Pure Empiricism``.

You must also understand that scientific theories are not eternal (same is true of philosophy). All scientific theories are temporal and empirically verified. Newton’s laws of motion are replaced by theory of relativity when the motions of extremely fast objects (moving near the speed of light) are considered. However, Newton’s laws of motion are still valid for our planet. It is also not important if Newton did any experiment himself or simply used the data of others. As long as his laws conform to empirical evidence, they are good. There is a breed of scientists who are called theoretical scientists. They don’t need to go to laboratories to collect data, they use data collected by others. Einstein was a theoretical scientist and so was Salam and are Weinberg, Glashow, etc. Notably, the string theorists are all theoretical scientists.

About Theoretical Scientists:

Please visit following page of ``Indian Logic Forum`` where discussion specially about me is going on. I already have explained the concept of ``Theoretical Scientists`` before others in this page. Check following link:

http://nyaya.darsana.org/topic115.html

And I am more passionate advocate of the idea of only the temporal validity of most (about 99%) theories of science and philosophy. You are saying that Newton`s laws have been replaced by relativity for the cases of very high speed objects. I don`t know why you avoided to mention that these laws are replaced by Quantum Physics also on the level of micro scale objects like particles. But you and ``science`` still hold that Newton`s laws are still valid for the cases of ordinary massive objects having ordinary speeds. I do not even think so. I think that science is sleeping. If it is not sleeping then it should see that Newton`s laws are no more valid even for the cases of ordinary objects having ordinary speeds. Newton was a person of 17th century. How his observations can still be perfectly valid...??? He had made his first and second law only on the basis of few experiments which Galilieo had conducted. Is ``motion`` so simple a phenomenon that could be described in just three simple laws? I do not think so. Newton was logical but only in his own time. Because he had not observed some those kinds of motion which we, the people of 20th and 21st century can observe. I believe that in the context of our contemporary world view, Newton`s laws are not free of logical mistakes. Science is dogmatic because it is not going to digest this thing. So I am not going to present this thing.

You also wrote that “obviously such a law can only be empirically tested in the time-scale of infinite period…” No, sir. A scientific theory that is being constructed at present time needs only to be verified by the data that is available now. If the future data falsifies it, it will be revised and updated.

Sir please come to the point. First law is saying that object ALWAYS shall remain in rest or uniform speed etc. Word ``ALWAYS`` is integral part of theory and theory should be ``empirically tested`` in ``always`` span of time in order to become ``empirical``. Otherwise, it is ``logical`` and not ``empirical``.


The rest of your discussion is repetitive. There is no real conflict between rationalism and empiricism in science. A purely rational theory can be wrong but if it is verified by empirical evidence, it is accepted as a valid scientific theory – not an eternal one but a temporal one. It’s good as long as it is not falsified.

This is exactly what I also want to say.

Regards!

khuram

The theologians of the Christian church with which I was associated despised philosophers and decried philosophy. Are there any attitudinal and teleological conflicts between theology and philosophy? How about in the world of Islam?


freethinker

If we took theology out of philosophy (as and when the two are ``mixed up``), will there still remain any inherent conflict between science and philosophy?

Khurram

Social constructionists would view all reality as socially constructed. Even theology (unless some social constructionist sets us right).

Re #15, ``Social constructionists would view all reality as socially constructed. Even theology (unless some social constructionist sets us right). ``

Indeed!

This begs the question of what is `true` and `real` in these social constructions.

Also, if reality is derived from social relationships, then what are the social relationships derived from?