Dear Alfredo,

The scientists of present time are the followers of the natural philosophers of the past. There is no opposition between them. Modelling nature is the basic aim of scientists of today as it was for great natural philosophers you mention. There is a main continuity. The degrees of concern may vary nowadays because of the working conditions and the daily practice may sometimes look very far from the psychology and the writings of the natural philosophers of the past, but attempting to decipher nature remains the basic challenge of scientists. Present standard models may have their imperfections but they are the best on the market and if a new window is opened to improve the model or replace it by a better one, any scientist will jump at it. Adding parameters like dark matter, dark energy, ... is not only for fitting new observations to the best (= the simplest) model in force, it is also to label new challenges to be solved. So every scientist interested in the field has it before his eyes and he can launch his brain machinery (and his creativity). This is also the way natural philosophers of the past managed the issue.       

Natural philosophy was the philosophical study of nature and the physical universe that was dominant before the development of modern science. It is considered to be the precursor of natural sciences.

there are good reasons to think it is important. Philosophy can not only help improve critical thinking skills, but it can help provide us with knowledge of logic that can greatly help improve critical thinking.

Just a clarification: in the question above, by "science" I am meaning fundamental  Physics; in the other fields of science the question does not holds.

Dear Guibert

Thanks for your answer. I know that what you so well explained is what scientists think. But I think they are deluded. I also know what is the root of the term "natural philosopher"; I don't use it here in exactly the same way; I just mean someone that uses Descartes method to understand nature.

I know that a scientist aims, in the bottom of his soul, to understand; but Physics does not aims that, its priority is having control over phenomenon and leave the image that it knows all the answers and is never in mistake. This pressure over Physics, that took the place of Religion for many, does not exist in other fields of knowledge, that being why this is a problem specific of Physics.

To work as what I call a Natural Philosopher requires a methodology and the development of skills that are unknown to scientists, in total conflict with even the way physics is learned. That is why physicists have so great difficulty in understanding the universe, their methodology and skills are not the ones fitted to it. 

Think: why no scientist of the time have done or understood the work of Galileo? Why Copernicus had to work out of the academic system? In his letter to the Pope, Copernicus asked protection against the "mathematician". Galileo was persecuted by the scientists and Newton was also an outsider to the scientific system, with serious conflicts with some of them. Possibly his work was only recognized because the British were trying to overcome "continental" science. This does not mean that there was not one or another scientist that have understood them, but the system looked at them as "terrorists" because they defended ideas that questioned the accepted ones; and that is not allowed by the system. And it has been so all along history. As has been studied by several philosophers, mainly Thomas Kuhn.

Probably you think that it is not so today. But it is. And I can gave you my own example. Many years ago, following the advice of a solar physicist, I send a Letter to Solar Physics presenting a very simple but important thing that I have discovered in the sunspot record; after several months of silence, it was rejected with the sole justification that "the readers of Solar Physics will not believe". Do you think this reason is in accordance with your idea of Physics? The truth is that no referee will ever accept a paper that presents something that does not fit in mainstream ideas.

I have also found, now and then, papers where the author presents something in total conflict with accepted ideas; but the conclusion of the paper states the opposite of the paper, in total accordance with accepted ideas; how do you explain this?

Another example: any physicist dares to question neutrinos? Of course not, it is on the base of the atomic model. Yet, if the neutrino is just a parameter to account for missing energy, how can a scientist ever produce the correct model? No, he can't, he never will, only someone outside the scientific system can do it.

A last example: I have discovered that the perfectly isotropic and uniform expansion of space is just the result of a decreasing length unit. Like in the case of the geocentric model, again it is the observe that is changing. I put a preliminary paper in vixra. It has many hundreds of downloads. What is the reaction of cosmologists? Some sent me warning emails, saying that the system will never accept my work because it is not of its interest. Do you see the problem? How can the system accept a work that destroys the theoretical work in cosmology of almost a century? Impossible, Yet, my work is the result of all the work done until now by cosmologists, who have precisely identify the characteristics of expansion.

I started trying to understand the universe very young. When a teenager, I already had solid ideas about what to do and knowledge on how our mind works. That is fundamental and that is why I went to engineering instead of going to physics - taking a degree in Physics would imply to loose my capacity of questioning the fundamental ideias. Descartes understood it very well. Did any scientist ever considered the possibility that space expansion be only an illusion produced by matter being decreasing in size? No, that is basically impossible for a cosmologist. And even if he did, probably he will not be able to analyze the problem, although it is quite simple. 

The persons that have changed paradigms are not necessarily "genius"; they are persons with a questioning mind; the scientists call them "genius" for not questioning what is wrong with their own methodology.

A last example: everybody says that the ocean level is rising; who considered the possibility that it is the continental plates that are sinking (in average)? That is the obviously explanation, to consider that Earth is not rigid and necessarily there is a stationary oscillation of the mantle, a vertical one; giving the anisotropic land distribution, necessary the mean ocean level changes through time. And there are many other examples I could gave you that something is wrong in Physics.The key to the problem is to understand how our mind works.

Dear Stefan

Yes, you are right... but that's a complex question... only someone that is aware of the problem will read it, I know... but I think that it is so important for the future of physics that I should make an attempt..

Dear Aladeen

Yes, Philosophy has the approach to problems that I thing was expelled from Physics - not from other fields of science, just from Physics. Because Physics is subject to an enormous pressure, it is seen as a replacement of Religion and to achieve this role it has to apear as knowing all the answers and never be in mistake. I think this was important in the past but now, when even Religion (at least the Vatican) no longer pretends to be always correct, I think that it's time to change something because this way Physics is going to disaster, given that the main theories are deeply wrong.

Dear Alfredo,

I’ve the feeling that your question is not so much related to conflicting ways of thinking of natural philosophers and fundamental physicists. Rather it would be a problem of recognition of natural philosophers' ideas. Then an answer to your question could be the one proposed by Max Planck (the man of the constant) : “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”

….Or alternatively another quotation from the same Max Planck : “Anybody who has been seriously engaged in scientific work of any kind realizes that over the entrance to the gates of the temple of science are written the words: 'Ye must have faith.'”

I think I disagree with the premise that "science" is about control, whereas philosophy is about understanding. Science does not control the universe. It merely tries to understand how the universe behaves. Science adjusts its models to seek to better describe what is observed, not to control what is observed. Models are rejected when they are found to be inaccurate, and are replaced with more accurate models.

Surely, neither classical physics, nor relativity, can be described as trying to "control" anything. The fact is, classical physics was found to be less than accurate at speeds approaching c, even if it works remarkably well at lower speeds. Relativity tries to address the shortcomings of classical physics, without detracting from classical physics within classical physics' limits.

Philosophers are more apt to develop theories which have a way of applying in some cases but not in others, and have no compulsion to advance those theories regardless. Human behavior is unpredictable enough that such practice is accepted in those circles.

I would agree that when one applies science, that's when "control" becomes an issue. But then again, in an infinitely less rigorous way, you could say the same about psychiatry, no? Attempting to apply control, even though the "system" in question is barely understood?

Dear Guibert

Exactly! That is one of the things I am saying: that the system is unable to accept a new theory that does not fit into the accepted paradigma. But this is not a fatality, or because physicist are stupid or bad persons. The reason is the following:

When one studies Physics, there is not time for questioning - one has to learn without discussion, to learn by heart, not by head. At the end of the course, what is common to what one has learned by heart is accepted by the mind as a "truth". That is the accepted paradigma. Now, when the mind accepts something as a truth, it uses it in the process of hypotheses generation - every hypothesis that conflicts with any such truth is eliminated and never reaches the conscious. That is why a physicist is unable to generate the new theory - only crazy theories That is why a physicist is unable to produce an atomic theory without neutrinos, in spite of its existence was ruled out by experiments - he simply refuses to accept a fact that contradicts a "truth".

The problem is more complex because there are truths that the mind produces independently of our will; for instance, that we are invariant. That is why no cosmologist considered the obvious possibility that is not the space that expands but the observer that decreases. Or that is not the oceans that are rising but the continents that are moving down.To be able to question such truths requires "wiring" the mind for it and to use special methods. So, you see, for science to be able to surpass current difficulties, it is necessary to introduce changes in methodology, organization and teaching. Otherwise the advance of Physic will keep dependent of some outsider that produces the new theory, being after a long period accepted, considered a genius and a scientist. At least, that is an horrible lost of time.

Dear Albert

By "control" I mean that the aim of Physics is to find equations that fit data; if they may represent something we can call "objective reality", that is secondary. For a natural philosopher, as I define it, its the opposite.

You say that a theory is replaced by a better one. The problem is that scientists are unable to produce a better one when the problem is in the paradigma. That is why the majority of paradigma changes were made by outsiders to the scientific system - like Copernicus, Galileo and Newton, to begin with. In the previous answer I explain why it is so. What made them able of doing it was not because they were "genius" but because they were able to question the paradigm. And they were able to do that because they were independent of the scientific system.

For instance, two major current theories are absolute flops: the atomic theory and the cosmological theory. It's proved behind all reasonable doubt that there are no neutrinos; yet, physicists refuse to accept it because they are unable to made a theory without them. On the other hand, the fact that the velocity of expansion is not decreasing destroys the Big Bang theory. But the only thing cosmologists can do is to introduce parameters with fancy names (dark energy, dark matter, cosmological inflation) because they are unable to discover what is behind the data - this is not because they are stupid, or ignorant, is because of the way mind works (see previous answer) and the organization of the system. 

Basically, either Physicist begin to understand these things or Physics will go on dependent on the possibility that some outsider to the system, afterwards called a "genius", appears with the new theory. Then a generation is still necessary before the theory is accepted. As it is increasingly difficult for an outsider to present a theory, there is the risk that we will stay a long time blocked by wrong theories. Se also next answer I give to your commentary

Dear Albert.

Lets take a look to Special Relativity. Einstein was also what I call a natural philosopher, as Poincaré before him. If you read some of his many texts, you will see how deeply he try to discuss the nature of things; even in his papers he his always mentioning epistemological aspects. In Special Relativity, Einstein tried to achieve equations able to fit data - that was his unique goal, to fit data as obtained. He latter defended the legitimacy of modeling "data as obtained". To do that, he introduce two principles. One is that the laws of Physics had to be the same in any inertial frame of reference. That seems logic, isn't it? Yet, for modeling the universe, not just "data as obtained", what is required is that the description of the universe has to be the same whatever the observer. Because Einstein did not followed this, he obtained a description of the universe that is different for observers in different motion. As you know, in such description, space and time are linked and curved. What does this mean? That length and time units of the observer change with the motion, of course!!! But Relativity is not a model of the universe, is just a model of the universe in relation to the observer - like Ptolemy model. Latter, after general Relativity, Einstein stressed that the length unit changes, he even called the reference-body a "reference-mollusk". But still everybody believe that we have a curved space time when what we have is a distorted frame of reference

The other principle he stated is a symmetry principle. He needed it to define a parameter in the equations. That allowed him to reach final equations, otherwise he would be stopped where Lorentz did. Latter, in one of his books, he mentions this aspect and asks: "what else could I have done?". 

But you know, the problem is that the so convenient symmetry principle does not holds. That is why the gemini and other paradoxes appear. To correct this it is necessary to develop "understanding", to be able of producing a model of the universe, i.e., a model that gives the same description of the universe whatever the position, motion, age or field of the observer. In hundred years of the theory no scientist was even able of understanding the problem, much less of presenting a solution - and who will dare to do it? Relativity is sacred. Once again, that is not because scientists are not smart enough, or because reality is beyond our capacity of understanding - it's simply because the methodology and organization of the system is unable to scope with these kind of problems. Either we produce a new organization in addition to the current one, able to deal with this kind of problems - and that is possibly the best solution - or the scientific system has to understand this and make the changes required to comply with this. 

Dear Alfredo,

It is maybe not so much a bad thing to question the organization of the present research system. Any human organized system should always tolerate criticism from outside (or inside) : this is sound behavior.

However I find the examples that you give a bit detrimental for the purpose. You write that “no cosmologist considered the obvious possibility that it is not the space that expands but the observer that decreases” : but all observations and measurements are going in the direction of an hot big bang cosmology with an accelerated expansion (“dark energy” is only a label to find out what the energy causing the acceleration actually is : vacuum energy, cosmological constant, etc.). On the contrary there is no evidence that all observers would decrease the same amount and at the same pace. And there is no theoretical background to explain all the cosmological observations and measurements on the base of a general “observer decrease” assumption. Moreover, even if it was the case, this assumption would lack simplicity compared to the standard one (Occam’s razor”). Similarly, when you mention the assumption that “it is not the oceans that are rising but the continents that are moving down”, observations contradict it : the melting of glaciers, meteorological phenomena, …. There are several signs showing that it is indeed simpler to consider that the oceans are rising.

A better example would probably be the dogma of the “aether” which pushed numerous scientists and not the least (Newton, Larmor, Maxwell, Riemann, Lord Kelvin, …) to perform deep studies and develop complex models during 3 centuries. Although during all that time the aether had never been observed nor its existence induced by measurements ! Then outsider Einstein came and simply assumed that the “aether” didn’t exist. He went farther than Lorentz (not a bad physicist though) who still sticked to the unobserved “aether”.

Another example is the anomalous precession of the perihelion of Mercury. Here the observations and measurements existed but couldn’t be explained by Newton’s theory, which played the “dogma” part. No astronomer or scientist of the XIXth century dared to imagine that Newton’s theory was perhaps failing on that point. Finally, one of the most distinguished of them, Le Verrier, who had already predicted by calculation the existence of Neptune, proposed the explanation of an additional planet he called Vulcan. Indeed Newton’s theory allowed to explain the anomalous precession of the perihelion of Mercury provided that another planet, Vulcan, would exist. But while Neptune could be observed, never did Vulcan ! Then Einstein (again) came and solved the issue (throwing Vulcan into the oubliettes) ….

Dear Guibert

Let us look to the cosmological model. Like Ptolemy model, it has dark energy to drag stars away instead of celestial spheres to drag them around; it has dark matter to explain the motion of galaxies instead of epicycles and deferents to explain the motion of planets; it describes an Universe that is different at distance, in the "skies": the "skies" are here made of dark energy and dark matter (96%) and expands; local universe is only matter and does not expands. This similarity does not make bells ring in your mind?

What is the evidence that it's the observer that decreases and not the space that expands? The fact that space expansion is uniform and isotropic, just a variation of scale, that disappears with a simple change of length unit, from standard to comoving. What is the simple explanation for this (Occam's razor)? Is it the whole Universe that expands or our length unit that decreases?

I am not speculating. I made the calculations, produced the theory and presented it where I am allowed to do - the vixcra: http://vixra.org/abs/1107.0016. That paper has been downloaded 860 times until today. Most cosmologists almost immediately understand that I am correct; the problem is that no one had the idea, but once presented everybody understands that it has to be the solution. As I said, cosmologists are not stupid, simply there are hypotheses that they cannot make due to the way they are prepared. I have received emails; from mathematicians, urging me to publsh in whatever "citable" place; from cosmologists saying that the system will never accept my work - not because it is wrong but because it is right.

Furthermore, considering that it is the length unit that decreases leads to a much much simpler solution - no dark enery, no dark matter, all data perfectly fited, a Universe that is the same locally or in the "skies", no need for cosmological inflaction and a lot more. No one that sees the solution can have any doubt about which is the correct one. That is probably why my paper has so many downloads in spite of the fact that I am not actively promoting it. 

In respect to oceans, the rising of oceans is as long as the record, about a century long; no correlation at all with temperature variations. Any student of physics should se that in no way the rising of oceans could be due a consequence of clime. Furthermore, glaciers are no longer melting but that is another complex subject I will not enter here.

About the aether; what Einstein said is that we do not need to consider the existence of an aether. This is not the same that saying that there is no aether. In General Relativity, he explains gravity by a curvature of the space; but what is a curvature of space? The simplest way of conceiving it is by a variation of density of a medium. A medium that is always present is today's physics  - it's the source of particles and of "vacuum energy" for instance. A gravity theory considering no medium would be a corpuscular theory, a theory based on the existence of "gravitons". Einstein GR proves that there are no gravitons.

So, you see how things can be different of what you are used to think? Do you see the leap that is necessary for getting free from current confusion models, based on mysterious and unknown entities, dark entities like in Medium age, God's particles, curved spacetimes depended on the observer, crazy cosmological inflations and so on? The physical Universe is the simplest that is possible, plain, logical, understandable - as Einstein said. The complexity is in Life, not in the physics of the universe. To investigate the universe is looking allways for the simplest solution, but what has been done is the opposite, is to add entities and particles and impossible phenomena whenever a new result is obtained; and this happens because the system refuses to question what was before accepted as true. This road leads only to disaster.

You mentioned Planck very well; me too, I am not expecting that current physicists, in general, understand this things - they cannot because then they will not know what to do; I am just trying to find here and there someone that starts to question, and that may begin to share ideas. so that these ideas may reach some future generation...