Dear Elizabeth,

You wrote, "I'm with Faldage. It doesn't refine a theory to prove it wrong, it overturns it."

Let me clarify. I am not referring to the type of knowledge that is very concrete, such as the rocks in my head or in the sky. I am referring to the grand principles of events such as Newton's Laws of Motion. Einstein's Special Relativity modified these, 'refined' them if you will in the sense that in the ordinary case the predicted behaviors closely approximate each other.

Particular facts are like the leaves on a tree. They shake even in a gentle breeze that doesn't even make the trunk tremble. It is to such principles that correspond to the trunk of the tree of knowledge to which I am referring when I claim that refinement is a better description than revolution for real sciences. Most people BTW are not acquainted with such principles, so they will not easily appreciate my point.

My background is in Physics, Math, and Philosophy with a current career serving the Financial Industry with financial software.

Having been involved in technical fields, except for a brief stint in the military, I would occasionally grow discouraged at the dizzying pace of innovation and the difficulty of keeping up with it. Then I realized that the basic principles of the fields in which I was engaged for a living did not in fact change nearly as quickly over time. In fact they were either slowly added to or refined.

In Mathematics for instance, you do not see the sort of wholesale 'overturning' of which you speak, once at least it had become established on an axiomatic foundation. Physics is a distant second as to certainty compared to Physics.

Only in the past few years have I begun to grasp similarly axiomatic foundations of religion and politics. In the case of politics, I reinvented 'deontic logic' when attempting to describe the relationship between 'duty' and 'right.' Deontic logics are varieties of modal logic. In the religious instance, the axioms are those which make the 'Ontological Argument' work.

If Engineering principles changed as radically a the sort of particular 'facts' to which you refer do, then buildings and bridges would be falling down in ordinary circumstances with much greater frequency than they in fact do. But what we see are structural failures in extreme conditions if the engineers and contractors are following those principles. Good thing for us that in so many 'practical' areas that basic principles are more reliable in 'hard' than in 'soft' fields!

BraveLad