Quote:
Originally Posted by monstert
Well, like you said, there must be justifiable reasons to change a definition. But if a definition do change, then the hypotheses one construct would simply have to reflect the new definition, if applicable. It's not like we change definitions often enough so as to make that impossible.
|
In science, it is either you construct a new definition, or retest it for errors. Newton's Laws, although flawed when quantum physics and relativity came by,
aren't changed at all. Mechanics are down divided between Newtonian and Quantum.
And I say it is a "hardcore" reason, not simply "justifiable" (where a new theory can be announced so the old one fades into obscurity, not reconstruct it to suit practices). So far I have only seen it being applied once in Chemistry, where the proton donor-acceptor relationship was reduced to a model for redox and half-equations, but not totally removed from the teaching of Chemistry in any school at all.
Bringing political techniques of argument (ad hominem, etc) into science doesn't work if you don't have any bases to set as a technical example. The fundamentals of science and math are based on discovery, not established norms of practices. So you might want to reconstruct that "justifiable reasons" part to include something more than a one-liner which you think you can use back on the other person.