Jon Ellison wrote:

> Newtons first law.
> In fact all of Newton's laws. Stand except in extreme
> circumstances, for example sub atomic particles and approaching
> the speed of light.
> Where in nature can Newtons first law be observed?
> How about an apple falling from a tree.
> Apple release, Apple fall, Apple coming into contact with more
> massive object such as the earth.
> Get into a car, drive into large concrete block at 50 MPH,
> observe the result.
>
> The result will be a synthesis of the "physical" or "empirical"
> or "observable" evidence. A Posteriori.
>
> If as you say Newton's first law is wrong you will be perfectly
> OK.
> The engine won't start..

Allow me to clarify my usage of terms.

"Data" is any information that's gathered.

"Evidence" is any data that's used to support a hypothesis.

"Physical evidence" is evidence consisting of data that was observed in (what we currently refer to as) three dimensional space. It is physically tangible and verifiable such that it can be repeatedly measured by anyone who has the tools and methods to apply such scrutiny.

But regardless of what words you use to describe it, the principle still stands that empirical (measured) physical (tangible) evidence (data supporting the hypothesis) trumps mere opinions or claims that are not based on empirical physical evidence. Therefore, if a claim contradicts the physical evidence, the conflict must be reconciled or else the claim is weak. Likewise, if newly observed physical evidence contradicts a previous claim, then the claimant has the burden to reconcile that contradiction or else the claim is weak. Claims that are presented in peer-reviewed scientific journals are based on physical evidence (I'll leave the distinction between "hard" and "soft" science out of this for now; but for the sake of completion, "hard" trumps "soft").

Newton openly acknowledged that he did not know what caused gravity; he simply drew his conclusions from the physical evidence. His conclusions were perfectly correct within the domain that they were drawn 350 years ago. Einstein did not show that Newton's macro conclusions about gravity were incorrect; in fact, Einstein made it a point to be sure his own theory included Newton's conclusions which were based on physical evidence. Rather, Einstein showed that Newton's conclusions were incomplete.

The Newton/Einstein conflict turns out to be an excellent example of the failure that arises from drawing "false inferences from the data" (Newton) as well as critical importance of physical evidence in validating a given claim (Einstein)! While it is true that Einstein's theory eventually showed that Newton was only partially correct in his macro-characterization of gravity, Einstein's general relativity initially was merely a claim based on mathematics and had no empirical foundations. Therefore, general relativity was not immediately embraced by Einstein's peers since it was not validated by any physical evidence. And Einstein understood the critical importance of physical evidence. That's why he took the proper steps to propose three tests that would acquire the physical evidence to substantiate his claim. Einstein's theory became accepted only after the corroborating physical evidence was acquired.

Meanwhile, one could characterize Newton's conclusions as being what some people (e.g., me) refer to "false inference" (jumping to conclusions) by extrapolating to a broader domain without having an empirical foundation to do so. That is, while he made his observations only on Earth, he tried to present his conclusions as being "universal". Einstein simply caught him on that false extrapolation. He proposed his more "universal" theory of general relativity 100 years ago but it wasn't until 1959, after verification through physical evidence, that his theory was accepted as valid.

Of course, as additional data is collected with newer technologies, our view of Einstein's gravity may yet again change, and such change will again be based on additional physical evidence.

Our world of science and technology has only survived because it is based on empirical foundations and not merely opinions and claims.



Post Edited (19-Jan-15 17:31)