Difference between revisions of "Does Relativity Theory Explain Too Much?"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Imported from text file) |
(Imported from text file) |
||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
==Abstract== | ==Abstract== | ||
| − | A re-evaluation of Einsteinian relativity in the light of Karl Popper's criterion for scientifically admissible statements. It is urged that a theory explains nothing if i( is employable (0 back up any of multiple outcomes which result from voluntaristic and arbitrary mathematical choices. That is, a theory is invalid, is not a scientific theory, if it is not falsifiable, that is, if it is consistent with multiple sets of facts.[[Category:Scientific Paper]] | + | A re-evaluation of Einsteinian relativity in the light of Karl Popper's criterion for scientifically admissible statements. It is urged that a theory explains nothing if i( is employable (0 back up any of multiple outcomes which result from voluntaristic and arbitrary mathematical choices. That is, a theory is invalid, is not a scientific theory, if it is not falsifiable, that is, if it is consistent with multiple sets of facts. |
| + | |||
| + | [[Category:Scientific Paper|does relativity theory explain]] | ||
[[Category:Relativity]] | [[Category:Relativity]] | ||
Revision as of 10:16, 1 January 2017
| Scientific Paper | |
|---|---|
| Title | Does Relativity Theory Explain Too Much? |
| Author(s) | S Richard Hazelett |
| Keywords | Relativity |
| Published | 1997 |
| Journal | None |
Abstract
A re-evaluation of Einsteinian relativity in the light of Karl Popper's criterion for scientifically admissible statements. It is urged that a theory explains nothing if i( is employable (0 back up any of multiple outcomes which result from voluntaristic and arbitrary mathematical choices. That is, a theory is invalid, is not a scientific theory, if it is not falsifiable, that is, if it is consistent with multiple sets of facts.
