Billy 1

Vincent Billy (121010007)

GFN1000 In Dialogue with Nature

7 May 2022

Topic 2

1. Introduction

Scientists observe and study natural phenomena, discovering laws and formulating

theories based on them. According to Albert Einstein, the development of a new theory is

possible due to a crisis in the old one, and scrutinizing these old ideas is imperative as this will

showcase the significance and validity of the new ones. Although I agree with his first point, not

all science of the past is worth the scrutiny. This essay will elaborate on the difficulties of a

theory and how these old ideas can guide us.

2. The Two Extremes

There are two extremes to how new theories compare with the old, according to my

interpretation. Firstly, the new theory supersedes the old and renders the latter obsolete. The new

utterly disproves the old. Thomas Khun believed “a crisis in science arises when confidence is

lost in the ability of the paradigm to solve particularly worrying puzzles called ‘anomalies’.

Crisis is followed by a scientific revolution if the existing paradigm is superseded by a rival.”

(Bird Sect. 1 Ch. 3). It is reasonable to conclude that a crisis in theory works similarly. This kind

of theory faces dispute and receives backlash after accumulating severe anomalies, including not

satisfying the correspondence and coherence criteria or falsely satisfying both due to a limited
 Billy 2

sense experience. Although identifying the detrimental faults of this theory can lead to a desire

and urgent need to search for a new one, studying the old ones has little to no use after its

replacement has been found and universally accepted. Therefore, the replacement will be

regarded as the new basis, and there is no need to study the old.

Secondly, the new theory is an improvement over the old and may reveal the underlying

cause of the latter. Unlike the first extreme, the new does not entirely disprove the old. A

weakness of these old theories is that they are mainly taken for granted, meaning they can

deduce outcomes quite accurately but cannot sufficiently explain the inner workings and

mechanisms of the natural phenomena. Moreover, these old theories may not be generalized

enough, which means they are too dependent on specific circumstances. They have a limited

extent of validity. These new theories can be regarded as extensions of the old ones, plus the

latter usually do not contradict the former. Thus, understanding these old ideas first will prove

helpful, especially if trying to understand the new ones directly is challenging.

3. Cases of Transition

For a start, a simple example is arguing whether the Earth is round or flat. Nowadays, not

only do we perceive the round Earth as the obvious truth, but we also dismiss the flat Earth

theory merely as hoaxes and conspiracies. Realizing that the flat Earth does not correspond to

reality only serves as the initial step for people in the past to conjecture the round Earth. Hence,

this case falls under the first extreme; examining the flat Earth theory has no further significance.

Furthermore, ancient Aristotelian physics is fundamentally different than classical

Newtonian physics. Regarding the theory of motion, Aristotle suggested violent motion in which
 Billy 3

no motion is without a mover, i.e., an external force (Lindberg Ch.3 Par.33). However, when

considering a ball ‘flying’ mid-air, a crisis arises: identifying the mover. Contrastingly, Newton’s

first law of motion, law of inertia, states that continuity of motion requires no external force

(Newton Law 1). Moreover, Aristotle’s geocentric model divided the universe into the celestial

and terrestrial regions, following different laws. He also proposed his theory of five elements, in

which the celestial region consists of an element different than the other four terrestrial ones

(Lindberg Ch.3 Par.25). Yet, as time progressed, it was logical to challenge the idea of a

separated universe following different laws. Ultimately, not only did Newton’s Law of Universal

Gravitation mathematically prove a heliocentric model universe but also “applies simultaneously

to both terrestrial and celestial objects” (Cohen Par.11). This transition in science is a paradigm

shift, a scientific revolution. Therefore, Newton’s laws entirely contradicted Aristotle’s theories,

and as a result, we always begin our process of learning physics with Newton’s, not Aristotle’s;

this case falls under the first extreme.

Before Newton published his Principia, fellow scientists such as Galileo and Kepler had

endeavored to contribute to the branch of kinematics and dynamics. Galileo laid his groundwork

with his concept of inertia and Kepler with his laws of planetary motion. Their ideas had

considerable testability and prediction power. A ball still moving horizontally after being thrown,

due to inertia, and the Earth revolving around the sun, due to Kepler’s first law, agreed with

observations. Despite that, Both Galileo’s and Kepler’s conjectures were by no means perfect.

According to Galileo, circular motion could be inertial according to Galileo (Cohen, 24), and

according to Kepler, anima motrix and magnetic force cause the planets’ elliptical orbits (Cohen,

Par 3). In the end, Newton incorporated inertia into his first law of motion and corrected that

circular motion is caused by centripetal force (Newton Def. 5). His laws cohered with how
 Billy 4

gravitational force causes a planet’s orbit around the sun, and he also mathematically proved this

orbit to be elliptical (Cohen, 5). Newton refined their ideas such that his laws have the

explanatory power involving the inner working mechanisms of the phenomena observed. Not to

take away his distinguished achievements, but Newton developed modern dynamics through the

contributions of his predecessors, including Galileo and Kepler (Cohen 63). Thus, modern

scientists cannot discard these past ideas as they have a considerable extent of correspondence

and coherence with the new ones; this case falls closer to the second extreme.

“This preservation of favourable variations and the rejection of injurious variations, I call

Natural Selection” (Darwin, 1). Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution, also known as descent

with modification, by natural selection contains aspects of inheritance and variations. Consider

the example of a tiger and a cat. Both have several similar features because they have a common

ancestor species, from which they inherited their feline characteristics. Yet, both have distinct

features due to divergence of character where the variations became more pronounced and more

different (Darwin, 42). Factors of this divergence include habitat and prey. This example verifies

the testability of Darwin’s theory.

Nonetheless, Darwin had trouble explaining the inner working mechanism of inheritance

and variations. His pangenesis theory, which argued that physical changes of an organism after

birth could be passed on (Watson, Ch.1 Par.8), was proven otherwise by August Weismann’s

mice experiment, which concluded that “changes to the body over an individual’s lifetime could

not be transmitted to subsequent generations” (Watson, Ch. 1 Par. 10). Eventually, James

Watson co-discovered the double-helical DNA structure and further stressed DNA’s role as the

container of genetic information. DNA replication, which “involves unzipping the double helix

and copying each strand” (Watson Ch.2 Par.60), is the inner working mechanism of inheritance.
 Billy 5

In addition, mutations in the DNA also contribute to genetic variations within a species. At first,

Schrödinger believed a new law of physics was required to understand how hereditary

information is copied (Watson Ch.2 Par.51). Nevertheless, in the context of DNA, Watson has

shown that life was no different from the physics and chemistry scientists had built so far

(Watson Ch2. Par.64). There was no shift in paradigm. Hence, Darwin’s theory of evolution still

has relevancy because it is the consequence of how DNA works; this case falls closer to the

second extreme.

Lastly, Einstein is influential in developing the two pillars of modern physics: quantum

mechanics and relativity. Einstein won a Nobel Prize in Physics for his work on the photoelectric

effect, and he also introduced special relativity and general relativity. Although Kuhn argued that

a paradigm shift accompanies the transition from classical Newtonian physics to relativistic

Einsteinian physics, one can view that “Newton’s theory is a special case of Einstein’s (to a close

approximation)” (Bird Sect. 4.3 Ch. 2). This view means the extent of validity of Newton’s laws

depends on several premises, and Einstein’s are more general. Contrary to the first extreme, the

latter do not utterly render the former obsolete. Even nowadays, phenomena of classical

mechanics can still be readily observed and have tremendous applications. For example, when

students study physics in high school, they do not immediately start with modern physics

because learning the concepts of classical physics is essential before advancing to the more

challenging modern physics. It is more difficult in the sense that it describes phenomena that are

not discernable in everyday life. Thus, this case falls closer to the second extreme; scrutinizing

Newton’s ideas is necessary to progress to Einstein’s.

In conclusion, weaknesses in an old theory precede the birth of a new one. The former,

which the latter has wholly replaced, will shed no more light on current knowledge and thus need
 Billy 6

not be studied. Contrastingly, if these new ideas are generalizations of the old or have

explanatory power of the mechanisms of the old ones, then these old ideas will persevere in their

relevance. Examining them is crucial as it is the stepping stone towards comprehending the new.
 Billy 7

Works Cited

Aristotle. Physics. Translated by Robin Waterfield. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996.

Bird, Alexander. "Thomas Kuhn". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2022

Edition), Oct 31, 2018, plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2022/entries/thomas-kuhn/.

Accessed 7 May 2022.

Cohen, I. Bernard. The Birth of a New Physics: Revised and Updated. New York: W.W. Norton,

1985. Used in In Dialogue with Nature: Textbook for General Education Foundation

Programme. Revised 2nd ed. Hong Kong: Office of University General Education, 2012.

P.49-62.

Darwin, Charles. On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection (First Edition). 1859.

Used in In Dialogue with Nature: Textbook for General Education Foundation

Programme. Revised 2nd ed. Hong Kong: Office of University General Education, 2012.

P.73-96.

Lindberg, David C. The Beginnings of Western Science: The European Scientific Tradition in

Philosophical, Religious, and Institutional Context, Prehistory to A.D. 1450 (Second

Edition). Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007. Used in In Dialogue with Nature:

Textbook for General Education Foundation Programme. Revised 2nd ed. Hong Kong:

Office of University General Education, 2012. P.11-48.

Newton, Isaac. The Principia: Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy. Berkeley:

University of California Press, 2012. Reproduced in In Dialogue with Nature: Textbook

for General Education Foundation Programme. Revised 2nd ed. Hong Kong: Office of

University General Education, 2012. P.63-70.

 Billy 8

Watson, James D, and Andrew J. Berry. Dna: The Secret of Life. New York: Alfred A. Knopf,

2003. Used in In Dialogue with Nature: Textbook for General Education Foundation

Programme. Revised 2nd ed. Hong Kong: Office of University General Education, 2012.

P.97-142.