Did George Berkeley refute Issac Newton?
Guy Macon
John Doty wrote:
>Should 18th century physicists have abandoned Newtonian mechanics
>and returned to a belief in Aristotelian physics when Berkeley
>showed that it was based on fallacious reasoning? Straight answer,
>no evasion please.
The above is a classic example of the limited/false alternatives
fallacy. You constructed the above argument with the unwarranted
assumption that the only possible alternative to Newtonian mechanics
is Aristotelian physics, and proceeded to ask me to choose between
those options as if they were the only possible answers.
It is also a classic example of the begging the question fallacy
-- arriving at a conclusion based on statements that themselves
have not been proven to be true. In this case you assume but
have not established that George Berkeley proved that Issac
Newton used fallacious reasoning.
It should be noted -- even though what follows does not imply that
Berkeley was wrong; that would itself be a logical fallacy -- that
Berkeley conducted his campaign against Newtonian mechanics because
he opposed what he saw as the religious implications. Himself being
an Anglican bishop, he was attempting to defend traditional
Christianity against Deism.
The interested reader can read Berkeley's arguments and decide
for himself whether he actually refuted Newton. Look here:
URL: http://www.maths.tcd.ie/pub/HistMath/People/Berkeley/Analyst/
Title: THE ANALYST; OR, A DISCOURSE Addressed to an Infidel
MATHEMATICIAN. WHEREIN It is examined whether the Object,
Principles, and Inferences of the modern Analysis are more
distinctly conceived, or more evidently deduced, than Religious
Mysteries and Points of Faith. By George Berkeley (1734)
Also see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Berkeley
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Analyst
http://www.maths.tcd.ie/pub/HistMath/People/Berkeley/Defence/
http://www.maths.tcd.ie/pub/HistMath/People/Jurin/NoFriend/
http://www.maths.tcd.ie/pub/HistMath/People/Walton/Vindication/
George Berkeley on killfiles (written in 1735):
"There are some Men that can neither give nor take an Answer,
but writing merely for the sake of writing multiply words
to no purpose. I shall no more ask [him] to explain any
thing. For I can honestly say, the more he explains, the
more I am puzzled. At first I consider'd him in another
light, as one who had good reason for keeping to the beaten
Track, who had been used to dictate, who had terms of art
at will, but was indeed, at small trouble about putting
them together, and perfectly easy about his Reader's
understanding them. It must be owned, in an age of so
much ludicrous humour, it is not every one can at first
sight discern a Writer's real design. But, be a man's
Assertions ever so strong in favour of a Doctrine, yet
if his Reasonings are directly levelled against it,
whatever Question there may be about the matter in Dispute,
there can be none about the Intention of the Writer."
--
Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/> Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/>
Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/> Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/>
Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/> Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/>
Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/> Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/>
Marcel Hendrix
[..]
> Title: THE ANALYST; OR, A DISCOURSE Addressed to an Infidel
> MATHEMATICIAN. WHEREIN It is examined whether the Object,
> Principles, and Inferences of the modern Analysis are more
> distinctly conceived, or more evidently deduced, than Religious
> Mysteries and Points of Faith. By George Berkeley (1734)
This certainly takes the concept "endless religious arguments over Forth"
to unprecedented heights.
-marcel
Guy Macon
Hey if Good old George Berkeley and Issac Newton can have
religious arguments about calculus, why not follow that lead?
I am thinking of creating all my variable names along the
lines of 18th-cenury book titles. This should encouarage
me to use the stack instead.
<grin>
John Doty
> John Doty wrote:
>
>> Should 18th century physicists have abandoned Newtonian mechanics
>> and returned to a belief in Aristotelian physics when Berkeley
>> showed that it was based on fallacious reasoning? Straight answer,
>> no evasion please.
>
> The above is a classic example of the limited/false alternatives
> fallacy. You constructed the above argument with the unwarranted
> assumption that the only possible alternative to Newtonian mechanics
> is Aristotelian physics, and proceeded to ask me to choose between
> those options as if they were the only possible answers.
Once again, you evade. Never a straight answer to a simple question.
What alternative was available to 18th century physicists? But, just to
make you happy, I'll rephrase the question:
Should 18th century physicists have abandoned Newtonian mechanics when
Berkeley showed that it was based on fallacious reasoning?
>
> It is also a classic example of the begging the question fallacy
> -- arriving at a conclusion based on statements that themselves
> have not been proven to be true. In this case you assume but
> have not established that George Berkeley proved that Issac
> Newton used fallacious reasoning.
Nobody has refuted Berkeley's reasoning to this day, as far as I know.
It's solidly based in classical logic, in particular in the "law of the
excluded middle".
Of course, if you actually study logic instead of just worshiping it
you'll see that that's a rather shaky principle. Constructivist
mathematics throws it out. Lyttleton' philosophy of scientific knowledge
(with which I'm in close agreement) is that it's *all* middle in the
real world: it's truth and falsehood that are denied us.
The physicist's answer to Berkeley was to ignore his arguments, as
calculus works, and that's what matters to a realist. The
mathematician's answer was to change the foundations of calculus, but
that took more than a century.
>
> It should be noted -- even though what follows does not imply that
> Berkeley was wrong; that would itself be a logical fallacy -- that
> Berkeley conducted his campaign against Newtonian mechanics because
> he opposed what he saw as the religious implications. Himself being
> an Anglican bishop, he was attempting to defend traditional
> Christianity against Deism.
That is historical interest, but of no relevance to either logicians or
physics. Practitioners of the logicist philosophy you miscall "critical
thinking" care about getting answers that are correct in some well
defined imaginary world. Physicists care about getting answers that are
correct in the real world. The motivation behind the answer matters to
neither.
Indeed. Please reread this and meditate.
--
John Doty, Noqsi Aerospace, Ltd.
http://www.noqsi.com/
--
History teaches that logical consistency is neither sufficient nor
necessary to establish practical, real world truth. Those who attempt to
use logic for that purpose are abusing it.
Clever Monkey
> Guy Macon wrote:
>> John Doty wrote:
>>
>>> Should 18th century physicists have abandoned Newtonian mechanics and
>>> returned to a belief in Aristotelian physics when Berkeley showed
>>> that it was based on fallacious reasoning? Straight answer, no
>>> evasion please.
>>
>> The above is a classic example of the limited/false alternatives
>> fallacy. You constructed the above argument with the unwarranted
>> assumption that the only possible alternative to Newtonian mechanics
>> is Aristotelian physics, and proceeded to ask me to choose between
>> those options as if they were the only possible answers.
>
> Once again, you evade. Never a straight answer to a simple question.
>
> What alternative was available to 18th century physicists? But, just to
> make you happy, I'll rephrase the question:
>
> Should 18th century physicists have abandoned Newtonian mechanics when
> Berkeley showed that it was based on fallacious reasoning?
>
time when this thing called science was being more fully sketched out.
A theory is a framework upon which one hangs evidence to see how it
fits. One ill-fitting or incorrect bit of evidence does not necessarily
refute the entire theory.
The question ask is, have other scientists since provided arguments that
have added to the body of evidence in question, allowing us to be
reasonably sure our theory is (as far as we know) correct? The answer,
of course, is "yes."
>>
>> It is also a classic example of the begging the question fallacy
>> -- arriving at a conclusion based on statements that themselves have
>> not been proven to be true. In this case you assume but have not
>> established that George Berkeley proved that Issac Newton used
>> fallacious reasoning.
>
> Nobody has refuted Berkeley's reasoning to this day, as far as I know.
> It's solidly based in classical logic, in particular in the "law of the
> excluded middle".
>
> Of course, if you actually study logic instead of just worshiping it
> you'll see that that's a rather shaky principle. Constructivist
> mathematics throws it out. Lyttleton' philosophy of scientific knowledge
> (with which I'm in close agreement) is that it's *all* middle in the
> real world: it's truth and falsehood that are denied us.
>
Yes, logical reasoning is a fantastic tool for some applications. Less
so for developing working hypothesis to see if they fit a theory. We've
all heard the absurd answers that inductive logic leads us to, as they
have become running gags.
> The physicist's answer to Berkeley was to ignore his arguments, as
> calculus works, and that's what matters to a realist. The
> mathematician's answer was to change the foundations of calculus, but
> that took more than a century.
>
Ignoring evidence is an unfortunate fact of scientific research, past
and present. Scientists are people, and make mistakes like other people
do. The difference is that science offers a system of checks and
balances to assist developing and maintaining theories over time.
It sounds a bit like you are arguing by using a sort of "appeal to
authority", but in reverse. It is fallacy that if a famous physicist
has made a single mistake that an entire theory is in jeopardy.
Newton and the many "giants" who came before him represent a huge body
of work, some of it good and some of it since refuted or corrected.
This is just how humans have muddled their way through the ages so we
can have an off-topic conversation over the aether.
Consider this a win. Considering that Quantum mechanics mostly reframes
Newtonian physics, while providing a framework that explains some of the
dark corners that never satisfied even Newton, I think we can say we are
continuing to move in the right direction. There will be mistakes along
the way, even bad ones, but science is a robust tool that recovers quite
easily from such problems.
--
clvrmnky <mailto:spam...@clevermonkey.org>
Direct replies to this address will be blacklisted. Replace "spamtrap"
with my name to contact me directly.