4 ms·

> Masses attract because they are attracted to eachother is not a theory of gravity, it's a restatement of the givens. Newton's theory of gravity had been domi

by ordu 6y ago

> Masses attract because they are attracted to eachother is not a theory of gravity, it's a restatement of the givens. Newton's theory of gravity had been dominating for a several centuries. It states literally this, masses attract because they are attracted. Despite of this it is a very valuable theory even now. > Theories explain observations, and predict what ought to be observed beyond the data used in their formulation. A very good theories manage to combine good explanations with a predictive power. But there are countless examples of theories which could give either explanation or predictive power. Moreover there are theories which manage neither explanations nor predictions, but something else. For example they can be used as an data structure for storing and retrieving facts: Carl Linnaeus devised the Linnean taxonomy, which directed biological research for a long time, even there were nor explanations nor predictions. I'm not sure though, maybe I'm stretching the term "theory" a little? But if we asked functions of Linnean taxonomy in times before Darwin, then we'd find that it's functions were functions of a theory: to collect and to classify facts and to drive research.

jjk166 6y ago
Everyone who has ever lived knew that things fell to the ground; Newton's theory of gravity describes how. It makes testable predictions which were subsequently verified. That's why Newton gets his name on it and all those billions that came before him didn't. Knowing that things fall is not the same as knowing what causes them to fall. Linnean taxonomy makes the very powerful implicit prediction that similar looking animals are related in some way to one another. While it would be many decades more before the mechanism of those relations were explained, the recognition that, for example, a dog and a wolf are the same type of thing was in and of itself non-obvious. What I think you are trying to describe is a model, which is a system of understanding information without necessarily explaining it.
- jlokier 6y ago
  Yes, but Newton's insight was that the ground has mass too, and that things fall because masses are attracted to each other. Before that, people knew things fell down, but it hadn't occurred to them that this was caused by masses attracting each other, or that the ground is being attracted to the falling object.
- ordu 6y ago
  > Knowing that things fall is not the same as knowing what causes them to fall. A lot of prominent contemporaries of Newton critisized Newton for a "magic" explanation of gravity. How Jupiter knows a mass of Sun, to be attracted to it with a proper force? We learn Newton's theory in a school when we are not developed mentally enough to question Newton's theory, so we just accept it as an authority gives it to us. Then we become accustomed to it and it feels ok to Jupiter to know mass of Sun, so we do not question it when becoming wiser. But it is a stupid thing really. Einstein's explanation with the bent space-time is much better. I do not mean to mock Newton, to state that he was wrong and his critics were right. I'm trying to say that the lack of explanation is not a fatal thing for a theory. Critics of Newton were right, but Newton was right also. The real achievement of Newton is to 'trivialization' of a problem, he picked mass as a leading factor and ignored all other possible factors, like brightness, size, visible size on the sky, albedo, inner structure, material, density, etc. Newton picked mass, wrote his law, and managed to prove that Kepler's law could be derived from Newton's law. The discussed theory of political polarization do a very similar thing: it picks just one factor and describes facts with it, ignoring a lot of other factors. It is trivialization of a problem. I didn't thoroughly read the article, but it seems for me that authors propose a quantitative measures of a polarization and their model is able to predict them. They do worse than Newton because they didn't invent a whole new branch of math to prove that other models could be derived from their's. But does it makes their achievement nonexistent? > the recognition that, for example, a dog and a wolf are the same type of thing was in and of itself non-obvious. I'm not sure about this. The trouble is I was born at the era when the relation between a dog and a wolf was obvious. Maybe this make it impossible to me to believe that this couldn't be obvious. It seems for me that it is obvious that similar species are similar. Even if we do not state explicitly that they are related, we feel it already, so when stated it feels obvious. The non-obvious is when dissimilar species are related. So I don't know was it obvious that a dog and a wolf are the same type, though I could make a testable prediction to check it: if Linnaean taxonometry was non-obvious, than there had to be an outrage of contemporaries. Only obvious things are accepted by everyone. > What I think you are trying to describe is a model, which is a system of understanding information without necessarily explaining it. Yes, almost. One small correction: it is not understanding, it is just a mnemonic, which makes it relatively easy to file information and to retrieve it. The resulting understanding is a 'fake' one, people feel it like they understand, but really there are no understanding behind this feeling.

by ordu 6y ago

jjk166 6y ago

Everyone who has ever lived knew that things fell to the ground; Newton's theory of gravity describes how. It makes testable predictions which were subsequently verified. That's why Newton gets his name on it and all those billions that came before him didn't. Knowing that things fall is not the same as knowing what causes them to fall. Linnean taxonomy makes the very powerful implicit prediction that similar looking animals are related in some way to one another. While it would be many decades more before the mechanism of those relations were explained, the recognition that, for example, a dog and a wolf are the same type of thing was in and of itself non-obvious. What I think you are trying to describe is a model, which is a system of understanding information without necessarily explaining it.

jlokier 6y ago
Yes, but Newton's insight was that the ground has mass too, and that things fall because masses are attracted to each other. Before that, people knew things fell down, but it hadn't occurred to them that this was caused by masses attracting each other, or that the ground is being attracted to the falling object.
ordu 6y ago
> Knowing that things fall is not the same as knowing what causes them to fall. A lot of prominent contemporaries of Newton critisized Newton for a "magic" explanation of gravity. How Jupiter knows a mass of Sun, to be attracted to it with a proper force? We learn Newton's theory in a school when we are not developed mentally enough to question Newton's theory, so we just accept it as an authority gives it to us. Then we become accustomed to it and it feels ok to Jupiter to know mass of Sun, so we do not question it when becoming wiser. But it is a stupid thing really. Einstein's explanation with the bent space-time is much better. I do not mean to mock Newton, to state that he was wrong and his critics were right. I'm trying to say that the lack of explanation is not a fatal thing for a theory. Critics of Newton were right, but Newton was right also. The real achievement of Newton is to 'trivialization' of a problem, he picked mass as a leading factor and ignored all other possible factors, like brightness, size, visible size on the sky, albedo, inner structure, material, density, etc. Newton picked mass, wrote his law, and managed to prove that Kepler's law could be derived from Newton's law. The discussed theory of political polarization do a very similar thing: it picks just one factor and describes facts with it, ignoring a lot of other factors. It is trivialization of a problem. I didn't thoroughly read the article, but it seems for me that authors propose a quantitative measures of a polarization and their model is able to predict them. They do worse than Newton because they didn't invent a whole new branch of math to prove that other models could be derived from their's. But does it makes their achievement nonexistent? > the recognition that, for example, a dog and a wolf are the same type of thing was in and of itself non-obvious. I'm not sure about this. The trouble is I was born at the era when the relation between a dog and a wolf was obvious. Maybe this make it impossible to me to believe that this couldn't be obvious. It seems for me that it is obvious that similar species are similar. Even if we do not state explicitly that they are related, we feel it already, so when stated it feels obvious. The non-obvious is when dissimilar species are related. So I don't know was it obvious that a dog and a wolf are the same type, though I could make a testable prediction to check it: if Linnaean taxonometry was non-obvious, than there had to be an outrage of contemporaries. Only obvious things are accepted by everyone. > What I think you are trying to describe is a model, which is a system of understanding information without necessarily explaining it. Yes, almost. One small correction: it is not understanding, it is just a mnemonic, which makes it relatively easy to file information and to retrieve it. The resulting understanding is a 'fake' one, people feel it like they understand, but really there are no understanding behind this feeling.