NASA Collects Gravity Data to Test Einstein's Theory

Space.com ^ | November 17th, 2005 | Patrick Barry and Tony Phillips

[unlearner]

"all trained scientists have a solid epistemological and philosophical framework from which they work from..."

Wrong. Many scientists are only specialists in their chosen field. Many are not attracted to the undergirding philosophical foundations. And that is fine. The problem is when certain scientists (one particular group comes to mind) attempt to stake out their field of science as sacred truth without even understanding the philosophical underpinnings.

"And that framework (like conservatism itself) is solidly realist in its foundations."

And wrong again. This article is specifically about Einstein's theories being tested, and he was not a scientific realist.

[unlearner]

"There is no evidence such subjects [as epistemology and philosophy] develop analytic and creative talents."

I beg to differ. Einstein is an excellent example. He described these subjects as being essential to his own accomplishments. He regarded them to be critical for anyone aspiring to be a great scientist.

[GOPJ]

Thanks for the ping.

[longshadow]

The sphere in mine is made of beryllium as apposed to quartz that was used on the Gravity Probe B.

The sphere in my gyro is perfect. It is made from Unobtanium. My results will be published in the "Journal of Utopian Science".

;-)

[jennyp]

Hmmmmm...

I have a similar type of gyro (in my "junk box") I use to show how different gyros are made and work. The sphere in mine is made of beryllium ...

Hazards — very toxic. To maintain vacuum tightness store and use in a dry atmosphere below 50% relative humidity.

LOL, You must have some junkbox! =:-O

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[FOG724]

: )

[RadioAstronomer]

What confuses me is WHY they have not done this experiment already .

This experiment took ~45 years to design and implement. The gyros alone took more than 10 years to manufacture.

One hell of an accomplishment in my book. :-)

[RadioAstronomer]

You must have some junkbox!

It's got a few bits of this and that. :-)

[RadioAstronomer]

I should add that my gyro is in a hermetically sealed structure and the beryllium poses no hazard.

[VadeRetro]

I beg to differ. Einstein is an excellent example. He described these subjects as being essential to his own accomplishments. He regarded them to be critical for anyone aspiring to be a great scientist.

I certainly didn't know that. Einstein would be in my mind one example of someone possessing mental processes not readily acquired by plowing dusty books.

[longshadow]

You must have some junkbox!

IIRC the last time RA used that as a pick-up line during "Happy Hour" at the Annual Radio Astronomy Convention, the woman he whispered it to slapped him silly...

[PatrickHenry]

Annual Radio Astronomy Convention

For some reason, it's always held in the same city, at the same time, as the Annual Pocket Protector Manufacturers' Trade Show.

[RadioAstronomer]

Annual Pocket Protector Manufacturers' Trade Show.

We usually share the same formal dining room.

[unlearner]

Einstein would be in my mind one example of someone possessing mental processes not readily acquired by plowing dusty books.

I'm sure his mental processes cannot be attributed to such alone, and I don't think such studies are limited to dusty books. The philosophy of science is and will continue to be a relevant area of study.

Not only does science advance by modifying and improving upon its theories, but also by improving upon science itself, i.e. its methodology, assumptions, goals, etc.

Here are some quotations from letters written by Einstein you might find interesting:

"I fully agree with you about the significance and educational value of methodology as well as history and philosophy of science. So many people today -- and even professional scientists -- seem to me like somebody who has seen thousands of trees but has never seen a forest. A knowledge of the historic and philosophical background gives that kind of independence from prejudices of his generation from which most scientists are suffering. This independence created by philosophical insight is -- in my opinion -- the mark of distinction between a mere artisan or specialist and a real seeker after truth." (This was a response written to Robert Thornton who was asking him to support the idea of including more philosophy of science in core physics courses.)

"How does it happen that a properly endowed natural scientist comes to concern himself with epistemology? Is there no more valuable work in his specialty? I hear many of my colleagues saying, and I sense it from many more, that they feel this way. I cannot share this sentiment. When I think about the ablest students whom I have encountered in my teaching, that is, those who distinguish themselves by their independence of judgment and not merely their quick-wittedness, I can affirm that they had a vigorous interest in epistemology. They happily began discussions about the goals and methods of science, and they showed unequivocally, through their tenacity in defending their views, that the subject seemed important to them. Indeed, one should not be surprised at this."

"Concepts that have proven useful in ordering things easily achieve such an authority over us that we forget their earthly origins and accept them as unalterable givens. Thus they come to be stamped as 'necessities of thought,' 'a priori givens,' etc. The path of scientific advance is often made impassable for a long time through such errors. For that reason, it is by no means an idle game if we become practiced in analyzing the long commonplace concepts and exhibiting those circumstances upon which their justification and usefulness depend, how they have grown up, individually, out of the givens of experience. By this means, their all-too-great authority will be broken. They will be removed if they cannot be properly legitimated, corrected if their correlation with given things be far too superfluous, replaced by others if a new system can be established that we prefer for whatever reason."

I am fascinated with Einstein's ability to integrate philosophical, scientific, theological, social and political views into his positions and yet never become muddled in his logical precision. He was able to express his scientific views so persuasively and with such eloquence as to leave little room for any opposing view.

I would not argue that in depth study of both science and scientific philosophy will automatically turn one into another Einstein, but I doubt breakthrough accomplishments like his will be carried out by scientists who are not knowledgeable about both.

[PatrickHenry]

We usually share the same formal dining room.

Yes, Denny's is very accommodating.

[RadioAstronomer]

Yes, Denny's is very accommodating.

That upscale? You have better conventions than we do!

[VadeRetro]

I am fascinated with Einstein's ability to integrate philosophical, scientific, theological, social and political views into his positions and yet never become muddled in his logical precision.

He was an avid socialist, which tells me he got a few things wrong. He also spent his last 30 years looking for a grand unifying theory which was far from ready to happen in his day. Basically, he could have died in 1916 and his physics legacy if not his historical one would have been almost the same.

Reading your quotes, I'd say he is far more interested in the specifics of an epistemology of science, knowing how we know specific things in physics, than in a generalized philosophical epistemology. He's basically praising what has come to be known as "thinking outside the box" and knowing when rules which might seem to apply will not.

He didn't always do this right himself, either. His objections to quantum mechanics seemed to stem from a refusal to let go of his classical physics sensibilities, the intuitions that formed his "thought experiments." When his own thought experiments contradicted the conventional wisdom (as happened when he was developing relativity), that was OK. When the QM model contradicted his own template of reality, that was not OK. It fell to others to insist that nature is stranger than most of us, including Albert Einstein, typically imagine.

[unlearner]

"He was an avid socialist, which tells me he got a few things wrong."

True. He also got a divorce; so he got another thing wrong. I heard a comedian once ask, "Do you newlyweds think you will stay married? You must think you're smarter than Einstein." His theology was wrong. His ethical views about eating meat were wrong.

"When the QM model contradicted his own template of reality, that was not OK. It fell to others to insist that nature is stranger than most of us, including Albert Einstein, typically imagine."

I don't think that is quite correct. Indeed, he openly admitted that he preferred certain approaches merely for philosophical reasons even when it was hard to reconcile this with hard data, but his objections to some more novel approaches, in my opinion, seemed to have more to do with issues like elegance, simplicity, beauty and logic, than holding firmly to his own template.

In my opinion, his objections are still justified. You could be right that the subatomic realm is stranger than we want to imagine, but one of the premises of scientific reason remains the assumption that the natural world is intelligible. That is why theoretical scientists are attracted to theories that explain a great deal of observable phenomena in the simplest way possible.