Scientific Principles Become Philosophical Presumptions for Purposes of Analysis

Science is built on presumptions. True, they are very useful presumptions that apply uniformly and consistently. Still, they are only presumptions. What the philosopher calls a presumption is taken by the scientist as a principle, postulate, or law. What the scientist hates is the philosophical idea that for every rule there is an exception. The philosopher is the more general of the two types of thinkers. The major dispute between the two professions is on the question, "What can be refuted?" Such a view of philosophy and science is consistent with Kant's adage that time and space are merely subjective conditions of all our intuition.

Einstein was perhaps the most extraordinary genius in the field of physics. Still, it was necessary to reconcile the Theory of Relativity with another great theory, Gravity. After he reconciled the two, the distinction between Special Relativity and General Relativity was born. Other theories inevitably modify our view of General Relativity, whether in its applications, or in the gray areas between it and the newer theories. To attempt to refute it is ludicrous.

A better approach, according to the philosopher, is to consider the theory hypothetically - and this applies to most any theory - and treat its principles or postulates as presumptions. DesCartes, the French philosopher, presented methods that might well be used to analyze the Theory of Special Relativity or the Theory of General Relativity. The Theory of Relativity is one of the most remarkable of theories. For purposes of philosophical analysis, however, the philosopher might begin with the idea that the two principles of Relativity are only presumptions that apply only in that schemata of thought. These two principles are 1) constant speed of light c in a vacuum; and 2) that the laws of physics are uniform to all neutral observers.

Maxwell's Theory of Electromagnetism presents a paradigm where the Einstein postulates for the Theory of Relativity are not really relevant. To some extent they apply, but generally they are ignored when analyzing problems related to Electromagnetism. It is convenient for the philosopher - and accurate, as long as the problem is within the boundaries of Electromagnetism - to treat the postulates of the Theory of Relativity as presumptions.

To summarize, the philosopher first views the fundamental postulates of a given theory as presumptions. Certainly, theories such as the Theory of Gravity are definitely "work-around" theories, but this doesn't defeat the method. (Obviously, the philosopher doesn't test Gravity by jumping off a cliff!) By viewing a theory's postulates as presumptions rather than as established fact, the philosopher can then begin to analyze when the theory applies, and when it does not. From there, the philosopher can begin to contemplate areas where, essentially, exceptions to the theory may apply.