You mean the "scientific method" and in what way is it flawed, though admittedly nothing is perfect.Obvious Leo wrote: However Newton established a methodology for science which is fundamentally flawed in its assumptions.
Does it matter whether or not he made those assumptions aside from the fact that anything is true to the extent that it works? Is there another method besides math for formulating one's observations? Tycho Brahe recorded a great many of those but depended on Kepler's mathematical talents to give it structure. Do you have an alternative?Obvious Leo wrote:Newton assumed that the mathematical representation of an observation was synonymous with truth...
"Not a single one of them"? You sure about that? Obviously there remains much confusion based on the complexities confronted and yet the models relating to Quantum Theory, as I've just discovered recently, are even better confirmed than Relativity. There should be no surprise in this since most modern technologies depend on the mathematical models of Quantum Theory being thoroughly operational. If those models don't make sense we would have preempted most of the progress made in the last 70 years so obviously that part is very well understood. Far less understood is WHY it works that way, its so-called underpinnings which depend on lower more abstract layers comprising the Quantum world.Obvious Leo wrote:There are as many different interpretations of these mathematical models are there physicists to invent them, and these stories are changing day by day. However these stories all have one thing in common. Not a single one of them makes the slightest lick of sense.
If you presented the kind of statements you make to an actual physics forum where ONLY physics and NOT philosophy is discussed there would be almost no lead-time between entering the front door and being shown the exit sign.