🚀 go-pugleaf

>I would like to suggest that Newton's Laws are indeed axioms and that
>Newton's approach was an axiomatic deductive one akin to what one finds in
>mathematics.  Clearly the questions asked are philosophical ones, not
>scientific ones.  The meaning such terms as why and explanation are open
>for discussion.  An even more difficult term is "facts".  I for one would
>not include any other the facts mentioned below as facts at all.  What does
>one mean by fact anyway? another philosophical question!!!!  Sad to say, I
>have no answers.
>                        Joseph Bellina (jbellina@saintmarys.edu)

Verifiable experimental data are facts in physics. They are often used as
starting points of theoretical considerations and we feel good when new
facts can be predicted by "pure reasoning". It is true that the words we use
to describe facts are often influenced by previous theoretical considerations
and that "pure facts" and "pure theories" are philosophical abstractions. But
why should we physicists be bothered by such nuances? What is wrong with a
statement that "attraction of electric charges is a fact of nature"?

Before answering you would probably ask for the meaning of the term "electric
charge". I would say that an electric charge is a physical quantity which is
measured, for example, with a ballistic galvanometer. You may object by
arguing that the functioning of that instrument is based on a theory which
can be traced to the law of attraction. And you would be right by saying
that a vicious cycle is created. But why should I be bothered by the
"chicken or the egg" dilemma when dealing with a particular egg or a
particular chicken? Clear distinctions between facts and theories can
usually be made in specific problems analyzed by physicists.

         Ludwik Kowalski
                                      Kowalski@Montclair.Apollo.edu.