PKT
mailing list archive
[ Other Periods
| Other mailing lists
| Search
]
Date:
[ Previous
| Next
]
Thread:
[ Previous
| Next
]
Index:
[ Author
| Date
| Thread
]
Re: more squiggly lines
>.... Newton's Equations were, are, and will ever remain
>DESCRIPTIVE - that is, NON-EXPLANATORY - of observed orbital mechanics.
>Newton's Equations were, are, and will ever remain
>DESCRIPTIVE - that is, NON-EXPLANATORY - of observed orbital mechanics.
It may be a problem of definition of the bold words, but I'll add
more bold words: NO science "explains." Science ONLY
describes. Theology explains. The quarreling here about
Newton is supercilious.
By the way, will someone define "epistemology" as it's being
used here?
And in the midst of a recession with dubious outcome, whatever
became of ECONOMICS here on pkt?
Mason C (physicist, for what it's worth)
- Thread context:
- Re: more squiggly lines, (continued)
- Re: more squiggly lines,
J. Barkley Rosser, Jr. Tue 30 Jul 2002, 19:31 GMT
- Re: more squiggly lines,
Gunnar Tomasson Tue 30 Jul 2002, 21:12 GMT
- Re: more squiggly lines,
J. Barkley Rosser, Jr. Tue 30 Jul 2002, 21:13 GMT
- Re: more squiggly lines,
Gunnar Tomasson Wed 31 Jul 2002, 15:04 GMT
Re: more squiggly lines,
Mason Clark Tue 30 Jul 2002, 01:55 GMT
[ Other Periods
| Other mailing lists
| Search
]