Darren New wrote:
> Mueen Nawaz wrote:
>> Darren New wrote:
>>> Yeah. The difference is, new theories not only have to explain *some* of
>>> the results, they have to explain *all* of the experimental results, and
>>> hopefully *also* explain something the current theories don't. And as
>>> physics and other sciences get more and more complete, it gets harder
>>> and harder to come up with a new theory that still agrees with the old
>>> theory except in the places we haven't looked.
>>
>>     A philosophy I never quite understood.
> 
> You don't understand why a new theory has to explain all the experiments
> the old theory does too? It's because if it doesn't, then the
> experiments you've already done are disproving your theory.
> 
> Surely I'm misunderstanding you.

	Reference: "Light is a wave" vs "Light is a particle"

	By your logic, if the current theory doesn't explain some known
phenomenon, it should be abandoned as well.

	Sure, the new theory has clear flaws, but so does the old one. Perhaps
one day a new theory will be developed that can, in a sense, combine the
two. That can't happen if the new theory is summarily rejected and the
majority of physicists don't even get a chance to think about it.

-- 
Guitar for sale. Very cheap. No strings attached.


                    /\  /\               /\  /
                   /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                       >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                   anl

Post a reply to this message