From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!usc!wupost!uunet!psinntp!scylla!daryl Tue Jan 21 09:26:36 EST 1992
Article 2826 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!usc!wupost!uunet!psinntp!scylla!daryl
>From: daryl@oracorp.com
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Cargo Cult Science
Message-ID: <1992Jan17.143402.13925@oracorp.com>
Date: 17 Jan 92 14:34:02 GMT
Organization: ORA Corporation
Lines: 36

Gene Miller writes:

> Newton's theory, like all scientific theories, is refutable, and,
> in fact, was constantly refuted as your analysis makes clear.

> A theory is refuted when post-observational fudging is needed.
> Refutation is ever-present in science.

I disagree, to a small extent. An observation of the motion of an
object cannot refute Newton's laws of motion; it is the entire
*package* that is refuted, the combination of:

     1. The laws of motion (how objects move under forces)

     2. The law governing the forces.

     3. The equipment being used to make the observations.

     4. (Possibly other things).

If the observation doesn't fit the theory, then it means that
something is wrong, but there is no way to tell whether the problem is
with 1, 2, or 3. I'm not positive, but I believe that it is always
possible to make an observation agree with Newton's laws of motion if
you are allowed to adjust the forces appropriately. Perhaps that is
what you consider to be "fudging", but the force laws are *not* part
of Newton's laws of motion, so changing the forces is not fudging
Newton's laws of motion, it is fudging electromagnetic theory (or
whatever forces are involved).

There is no way to independently measure forces without assuming some
laws of motion.

Daryl McCullough
ORA Corp.
Ithaca, NY


