Re: Refs, please... was... Re: AAT Theory

Paul Crowley (
Tue, 10 Oct 95 21:19:29 GMT

In article <45e655$> "David L Burkhead " writes:

> > (H. M. Hubey) writes:
> >
> >"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its
> >opponents, but rather because its opponents die, and a new
> >generation grows up that is familiar with it."
> > Max Planck
> More "scientific name dropping." Planck was wrong. He was proven
> wrong by his _own_ new ideas. Planck was still very much alive when
> Einstein took his idea of a constant relationship between frequency
> and energy and expanded on it. He was still alive (as were many of
> his peers) when it was adopted by others to become the basis of
> quantum theory.
> Frankly, if Planck ever _did_ say that (and I've never seen a
> source for the original quote--that it was attributed to him, does not

Hate to butt in, but I have the source: Max Planck: "The Philosophy
of Physics" Allen & Unwin (1936) p. 90.

A great book in this area is Thomas S. Kuhn's "The Structure of
Scientific Revolutions" (1970). It's the standard text but, in
spite of that, it is really good. If you haven't read it, you

One thing that you're forgetting is that History remembers only the
sucesses. In each controversy of this sort there are vast numbers
of professionals who can't cope with the change and they just get
forgotten [there's a warning there somewhere. :) ]. Those who can
change (the Max Planck's) are very much the exception.

I was once taught by a Professor Alfred O'Rahilly. A good teacher
and a great guy; he was very old when I knew him. I found out
afterwards that he had published a book in 1940 which categorically
proved Einstein wrong! (The General Theory of Relativity?)