Gerald James Whitrow (1912–2000) British mathematician
p, 125
The Structure of the Universe: An Introduction to Cosmology (1949)
From the Author's Preface to Third Edition (1919)
Space—Time—Matter (1952)
Gerald James Whitrow (1912–2000) British mathematician
p, 125
The Structure of the Universe: An Introduction to Cosmology (1949)
Steven Weinberg (1933) American theoretical physicist
page 18, 2nd edition https://books.google.com/books?id=Qd0MEtsBr7oC&pg=PA18 <br class="br">Dreams of a Final Theory (1992; 2nd edition 1994)
Edward Witten (1951) American theoretical physicist
"Edward Witten" interview, Superstrings: A Theory of Everything? (1992) ed. P.C.W. Davies, Julian Brown
Willem de Sitter (1872–1934) Dutch cosmologist
Kosmos (1932), Above is Beginning Quote of the Last Chapter: Relativity and Modern Theories of the Universe -->
John C. Slater (1900–1976) American physicist
[John Clarke Slater, Nathaniel Herman Frank, Electromagnetism, Courier Dover Publications, 1969, 0486622630, 11]
Thomas Kuhn book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions
Perhaps there is some other way of salvaging the notion of ‘truth’ for application to whole theories, but this one will not do. There is, I think, no theory-independent way to reconstruct phrases like ‘really there’; the notion of a match between the ontology of a theory and its “real” counterpart in nature now seems to me illusive in principle. Besides, as a historian, I am impressed with the implausability of the view. I do not doubt, for example, that Newton’s mechanics improves on Aristotle’s and that Einstein’s improves on Newton’s as instruments for puzzle-solving. But I can see in their succession no coherent direction of ontological development. On the contrary, in some important respects, though by no means in all, Einstein’s general theory of relativity is closer to Aristotle’s than either of them is to Newton’s.
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962), Postscript (1969)