Physics finds laws of natural world that explain reality. But is this done by one paradigm or one main and 3 subparts of it?
Although it is considered that the Galilean, modern science paradigm that displaced the Aristotelian is the dominant, it really is made of 2 subparts.
The 2 sub-paradigms
** Classic: absolute time&space, detrrministoc and accurateness value-driven, isotropic universe
** Modern: relative space& time, Hybrid detrrministoc & probabilistic, not absolutely isotropic universe
The contrast is too big between the 2 to live in the same science. I. E Classical mechanics lives in the first. Physicists who deal with this have different philosophical and epistemological commitments
How much do you think does this hurt the discipline? It has not been examined by schollars.