Difference between revisions of "Logical Principles and Kuhnian Analysis Applied to the Crisis in Modern Physics"
(Imported from text file) |
(Imported from text file) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Infobox paper | {{Infobox paper | ||
| title = Logical Principles and Kuhnian Analysis Applied to the Crisis in Modern Physics | | title = Logical Principles and Kuhnian Analysis Applied to the Crisis in Modern Physics | ||
| − | | author = [[John E | + | | author = [[John E Chappell]] |
| keywords = [[Logic]], [[Thomas Kuhn]] | | keywords = [[Logic]], [[Thomas Kuhn]] | ||
| published = 1998 | | published = 1998 | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
==Abstract== | ==Abstract== | ||
| − | Why do academic physicists fail to discover the flaws in special relativity (SR)? In distinct contrast to. e.g. the earth sciences, physics protects its most revered dogmas by excluding their critics from its ranks. Also, in choosing its paradigms. physics tends to be motivated by non-scientific criteria, as Tom Kuhn showed to be common in science. ''Constructivism'', derived largely from his thought, would interpret the concepts of modem physics not as reflections of reality. so much as ''cultural constructs'', stemming from a paradigm involving disdain for logic and common sense. and favoritism for the illogical and the bizarre. Yet it is not so easy to dispense with logic: if a theory is illogical - say if it violates the law of non-contradiction - it can ''never'' be confirmed by experiment. What are now considered confirmations of SR can. like most other empirical data. be interpreted in more than one way: as well as involving illogic, there are also logical ways, most of them consistent with a Newtonian approach. | + | Why do academic physicists fail to discover the flaws in special relativity (SR)? In distinct contrast to. e.g. the earth sciences, physics protects its most revered dogmas by excluding their critics from its ranks. Also, in choosing its paradigms. physics tends to be motivated by non-scientific criteria, as Tom Kuhn showed to be common in science. ''Constructivism'', derived largely from his thought, would interpret the concepts of modem physics not as reflections of reality. so much as ''cultural constructs'', stemming from a paradigm involving disdain for logic and common sense. and favoritism for the illogical and the bizarre. Yet it is not so easy to dispense with logic: if a theory is illogical - say if it violates the law of non-contradiction - it can ''never'' be confirmed by experiment. What are now considered confirmations of SR can. like most other empirical data. be interpreted in more than one way: as well as involving illogic, there are also logical ways, most of them consistent with a Newtonian approach. |
| − | [[Category:Relativity]] | + | [[Category:Scientific Paper|logical principles kuhnian analysis applied crisis modern physics]] |
| + | |||
| + | [[Category:Relativity|logical principles kuhnian analysis applied crisis modern physics]] | ||
Latest revision as of 19:40, 1 January 2017
| Scientific Paper | |
|---|---|
| Title | Logical Principles and Kuhnian Analysis Applied to the Crisis in Modern Physics |
| Author(s) | John E Chappell |
| Keywords | Logic, Thomas Kuhn |
| Published | 1998 |
| Journal | None |
Abstract
Why do academic physicists fail to discover the flaws in special relativity (SR)? In distinct contrast to. e.g. the earth sciences, physics protects its most revered dogmas by excluding their critics from its ranks. Also, in choosing its paradigms. physics tends to be motivated by non-scientific criteria, as Tom Kuhn showed to be common in science. Constructivism, derived largely from his thought, would interpret the concepts of modem physics not as reflections of reality. so much as cultural constructs, stemming from a paradigm involving disdain for logic and common sense. and favoritism for the illogical and the bizarre. Yet it is not so easy to dispense with logic: if a theory is illogical - say if it violates the law of non-contradiction - it can never be confirmed by experiment. What are now considered confirmations of SR can. like most other empirical data. be interpreted in more than one way: as well as involving illogic, there are also logical ways, most of them consistent with a Newtonian approach.
