Sherlock Holmes' Impacted Physics?

thebobgy, What else are you doing up at this hour of the day, 2.05 am where you are?!?!?!

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Peter Nielsen</i>
<br />thebobgy, What else are you doing up at this hour of the day, 2.05 am where you are?!?!?!
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Attempting to validate my points on, Holmes, Einstein and SR anything else I was doing is not relevant[]. I live in South Carolina.
thebobgy

thebobgy, As I have written in 5.7, I strongly disagree with your assertion that Holmes was merely "a criminalist [whose] work ended with step 2)":

"Holmes' [logic] had been ahead of his time, was very widely read, much more so than any logician . . . Einstein's Relativity thinking had . . . been Holmesian, Steps 1-4 below, and Popperian also, Step 5 below . . . The 20th Century's key scientific philosophies, by Popper and Kuhn, were anticipated by Holmes . . . Besides being thus Popperian ahead of Popper, Holmes was also Kuhnian ahead of Kuhn . . .

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Peter Nielsen</i> 15 Jul 2006 : 23:29
<br />thebobgy, As I have written in 5.7, I strongly disagree with your assertion that Holmes was merely "a criminalist [whose] work ended with step 2)":<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Peter, you misstate my assertion; I did not assert that Holmes was “merely” a criminalist, his other attributes and/or talents, (of which he had many) are moot to our discussion.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">"Holmes' [logic] had been ahead of his time, was very widely read, much more so than any logician . . .Popper and Kuhn, were anticipated by Holmes . . .<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Are you suggesting that an effect preceded its causation? Besides, with all due respect it is “Sir Popper” But now we digress; the issue is Holmes/Einstein.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">...Einstein's Relativity thinking had . . . been Holmesian,...<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Now I defer back to my post of 13 Jul 2006 : 12:52 What section(s) of “ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES” can you refer me to that will validate that assertion? And further, which book of Holmes can you refer me to wherein he utilized your step 3, and/or step 4 and/or step 5.
1. Regard the Universe as a catastrophic scene.
2. Weigh and eliminate all but one possible explanation.
3. Speculate further on this remaining most likely explanation.
4. Weigh and eliminate all but one of its refinements.
5. Look out for contradictions to this existing theory, in which case go back to Step 1) else go back to Step 3).

Moreover, with all due respect to you; I have read many of you messages where you requested that the member validate their assertions. Whether they, (the member) replied or not is testimony to their conviction. I will state for the record that a correlation between Holmesian and Einsteinian methodology can not be found in “ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING” BODIES Sec. 1 thru 10 inclusive. I should also state that I am not able to discuss GR with any working knowledge.
thebobgy

Scientists usually only acknowledge other scientists, do not usually acknowledge ideological influences in their scientific publications, so looking in THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES would be a waste of my time. Besides this, I haven't pretended I've fully researched this thread thesis.

I simply saw a need in that other thread, to work out what 20th Century Physics methodology was, where it had progressed to, where it came from and so on, only a day or so before starting this thread, so I cannot provide the validations thebobgy asks for.

I argue that the 20th Century was largely Holmesian, that Sherlock Holmes may have been a key figure of 20th Century Science much as others suggest that the 21st Century is largely Dickian/PhilDickian, largely created or anticipated by Philip K. Dick.

Professor Harold Bloom and others have argued that Englishness was largely created by Shakespeare. Others have argued that Britishness was created by Jane Austen. I tend to agree with these ideas.

I have already written in 5.7 that some of my writing is speculative, relying on recollection, impression and so on, because I have only just started, much as those other writers started their theses.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Peter Nielsen</i> 17 Jul 2006 : 01:44
<br />Scientists usually only acknowledge other scientists, do not usually acknowledge ideological influences in their scientific publications,...<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Interestingly enough, the only acknowledgment Einstein gave in SR was to his friend who was not a scientist, but that is not important to our discussion.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">...so looking in THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES would be a waste of my time. Besides this, I haven't pretended I've fully researched this thread thesis.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I agree, you have made no such pretense. However, you were firm with your assertions, (which is good) so I saw reason to think that you had made a direct connection between Holmesinian and Einsteinian methodology. Given the fact that I do not make the connection should not diminish the concept of your thesis; at least, it does not to me.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I simply saw a need in that other thread, to work out what 20th Century Physics methodology was, where it had progressed to, where it came from and so on, only a day or so before starting this thread, so I cannot provide the validations thebobgy asks for.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Your honesty is refreshing and far more important than your thesis. Someone or something influenced 20th century Science and given his popularity, it may very well have Holmes; if nothing else, he is a very good start.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I argue that the 20th Century was largely Holmesian, that Sherlock Holmes may have been a key figure of 20th Century Science much as others suggest that the 21st Century is largely Dickian/PhilDickian, largely created or anticipated by Philip K. Dick.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I see no reason to continue our debate because the validation I was seeking is apparent in your conviction. However, my statement does not mean I would not be willing to discuss your ideas. I will reread SR and apply your 5 steps to see if there is a connection; I am, after all, a victim to my own fallibility.
thebobgy
01:44?...And you asked what I was doing at 2:05[|)]