You have to be careful here. Einstein's theory didn't change the vast majority of the results predicted by Newton's theory. On "simple" or "fully resolved" problems, it didn't change anything....
“for simple problems or fully resolved technical matters there is little need for viewpoint diversity” but this is simply not true, just think back to when Physics were treated as a settled science for hundreds of years after Newton discovered his 3 laws of motions and how new discoveries of constant light speed and Einstein's theory of relativity uprooted all of its basis assumption
You have to be careful here. Einstein's theory didn't change the vast majority of the results predicted by Newton's theory. On "simple" or "fully resolved" problems, it didn't change anything.
Physics that deals with problems at classical scale remained the same after the theory of relativity, and you could reasonably argue that for those solved problems, "viewpoint diversity" doesn't bring anything as there's no real point of view or subjectivity when you have accurate observation and rigorous theoretical derivation, which we had for the majority of the physics covered by Newton's theory.
You could end up proving that string theory or many worlds theory are true, this wouldn't change anything in your description of how an apple fall from a tree. A large majority of physics is a settled science.
I don't fully agree with how you explain the difference between the classical and the relativist approach (saying that the relativist approach consists in considering the apple as stationary, you...
I don't fully agree with how you explain the difference between the classical and the relativist approach (saying that the relativist approach consists in considering the apple as stationary, you could do it in the newtonian framework without any problem, and this wouldn't put you in a relativist framework), but in any case when you say things like
Math and physics are as technical as it can get and even in these fields things are never settled
you are not correct. Mathematical and physical results that do not lie at the border of our theories (meaning, that do not rely on cases or experiments that are not considered fully and well explained) are very stable and the science is actually settled.
Sure, you can consider the philosophical or epistemological aspect, but in terms of science ? As settled as it can be.
You have to be careful here. Einstein's theory didn't change the vast majority of the results predicted by Newton's theory. On "simple" or "fully resolved" problems, it didn't change anything.
Physics that deals with problems at classical scale remained the same after the theory of relativity, and you could reasonably argue that for those solved problems, "viewpoint diversity" doesn't bring anything as there's no real point of view or subjectivity when you have accurate observation and rigorous theoretical derivation, which we had for the majority of the physics covered by Newton's theory.
You could end up proving that string theory or many worlds theory are true, this wouldn't change anything in your description of how an apple fall from a tree. A large majority of physics is a settled science.
I don't fully agree with how you explain the difference between the classical and the relativist approach (saying that the relativist approach consists in considering the apple as stationary, you could do it in the newtonian framework without any problem, and this wouldn't put you in a relativist framework), but in any case when you say things like
you are not correct. Mathematical and physical results that do not lie at the border of our theories (meaning, that do not rely on cases or experiments that are not considered fully and well explained) are very stable and the science is actually settled.
Sure, you can consider the philosophical or epistemological aspect, but in terms of science ? As settled as it can be.