Oh, that was going really, really well right up until “F=ma” appeared. Newton’s second law doesn’t have much to do with strength of materials or statics.
-
-
-
Oh, and Newton did a lot of experiments, and he knew about Gallileo’s experiments, Kepler’s explanations of Brahe’s observations, and so on. He didn’t summon F=ma (actually, F=dp/dt) out of purely theoretical considerations. It was there in front of him in others’ empirical work.
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Seems a little unfair; it's not that psychologists wouldn't understand science, it's that very few of the phenomena under study can be tested as directly as the laws of physics can, so statistical approaches are often the best you can do for testing whether something generalizes.
-
Yes; it’s not clear what the author would advocate as a way forward.
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
- 3 more replies
-
-
-
And then the bloody bridge would change its mind and want to be a dam.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Psychologists invented multivariate statistics though, so there's that
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Perhaps not wrong per se, but a seriously inefficient path toward understanding and discovery
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
No reason to pick only on psychologists . . .
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
