A very nice post by James Chastek at his Just Thomism blog.
I never understood why the following was not blindingly obvious, but it clearly isn't.
"If, for example, you wanted to study and learn Euclid’s Elements you have to be “methodologically Euclidian” but this in no way commits you to Euclidianism, i.e. the claim that Lobachevsky’s or Reimann’s geometries were false; if you want to explain classical physics then you have to be “methologically Newtonian”, even if you think that Newtonianism is false."
No comments:
Post a Comment