Debunking Physics
Stephen
Physics and Discovering Forever.
RyanT
misleading, and it's the title!
Scotmc
"Stephen" <para...@westnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:78ecc8f6.05042...@posting.google.com...
> see http://members.westnet.com.au/paradigm for the article, Debunking
> Physics and Discovering Forever.
From Stephen's Website:
>It's my position that everything has a cause.
Well there is a problem right there. You should probably prove that
statement.
> that everything has material substance and is composed of what we call
> matter, and that our explanations need to be consistent with observation.
Sure. I'll agree. no problem.
>With its reliance upon mathematics and other abstractions, physics is not a
>truly fundamental perspective and is best described as an abstractionist
>paradigm which is prepared to sacrifice materialism and causality for the
>sake of its quantifications. The nature of the Universe resides beyond many
>of the interpretations of the abstractionist paradigm, and fundamental to
>this
>nature is the phenomena of attraction and repulsion.
So "abstractionism" is bad. (Is that the idea?)
>When I rub a glass rod and place it near a suspended pith ball it attracts
>the pith ball. Physics sees this attraction as the result of dislike
>charges.
>This begs the question of how dislike charges cause attraction. I decided
>that the attraction was due to the pith ball absorbing emission from the
>glass rod and that everything in the Universe absorbs and emits as a
>product of its existence.
(1) You "decided"? You don't get to "decide". You can try to
"explain" (come up with a theory) and then see if that explanation
holds up.
(2) All you are doing is exchanging one abstraction for another.
Have a look at Wikipedia. Especially Scientific realism,
and Instrumentalism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science
================== Quote from Wikipedia ===================
Scientific realism and instrumentalism
Scientific realism, or naïve empiricism, is the view that the universe
really is as explained by scientific statements. Realists hold that things
like electrons and magnetic fields actually exist. It is naïve in the sense
of taking scientific models at face value, and is the view that most
scientists adopt.
In contrast to realism, instrumentalism holds that our perceptions,
scientific ideas and theories do not necessarily reflect the real world
accurately, but are useful instruments to explain, predict and control
our experiences. To an instrumentalist, electrons and magnetic fields
are convenient ideas that may or may not actually exist. For
instrumentalists, the empirical method is used to do no more than
show that theories are consistent with observations.