Bureaucrats, Comment administrators, editor, Interface administrators, Administrators (Semantic MediaWiki), Curators (Semantic MediaWiki), Suppressors, Administrators, Widget editors
11,019
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Modification:Sciento-2019-0012 (view source)
Revision as of 18:01, 29 January 2020
, 18:01, 29 January 2020no edit summary
|Authors List=Markus Alliksaar,
|Resource=Alliksaar (2019)
|Preamble=TODOAccording to Barseghyan, while Newtonian mechanics (NM) is [[Theory Use|used]] in practical applications, it is no longer [[Theory Acceptance|accepted]] as the best available description of physical processes.[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p. 31]] Yet, this portrayal of NM as unaccepted but merely used is problematic. Consider, for instance, the current status of ''meteorology''. It is clear that the current meteorological theory is accepted by the community as the best available description of atmospheric phenomena. However, this theory itself is based on some classical theories, including NM and classical thermodynamics. Thus, we arrive at a seeming paradox: "we have an accepted theory (i.e. meteorology) that is based on theories which are themselves no longer accepted, but merely used (i.e. NM)."[[CiteRef::Alliksaar (2019)|p. 34]] This is not a unique case, as most theories accepted in the Earth sciences are also based on the theories of classical theories. The question is how this seeming paradox can be resolved.
|Modification=Accept that while the ontologies of classical theories, such as those of Newtonian mechanics, classical thermodynamics, or classical electrodynamics are no longer accepted by the physics community, their phenomenological claims are still accepted as the best available descriptions of their respective observable phenomena, i.e. as the best available answers to their respective questions.
