3 ms·
Is it possible there’s some confusion here about the understanding (then and now) of “catastrophe”? As I understand, it wasn’t meant to mean that the theory ha
by twoodfin 3y ago
Is it possible there’s some confusion here about the understanding (then and now) of “catastrophe”?
As I understand, it wasn’t meant to mean that the theory had a catastrophic flaw, but rather that the infinite energy implied at the asymptote itself represented an (obviously unobserved, thus curious) physical catastrophe.
I agree with your characterization that an unresolved catastrophe of the latter kind does not imply a crisis of science the way an unresolved “catastrophe” of the former kind might.
- jerf 3y agoCould be. My understanding of the term is the same as yours, but reading it the wrong way would fit the facts, and I have to admit in general I can't be too critical of such a reading. The physics sense of "catastrophe" in use here is pretty obscure; I'm not sure I can think of another instance of it I've come across in English.
- Nevermark 3y ago“Catastrophe” or “crisis” have a long history of use for sudden change phenomena, especially associated with some major failure or blow up of a previous pattern of system behavior. “Critical” may be a more familiar word used in similar contexts, honed in on a specific threshold of a dramatic behavior change. None of these words in this usage style refer to the scientific social process, but to the phenomena.