PROFILPELAJAR.COM

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject ScienceTemplate:WikiProject Sciencescience articles

Philosophy: Epistemology / Science

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Associated task forces:
/
	Epistemology
	Philosophy of science

[untitled]

__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"headingLevel":2,"name":"h-","type":"heading","level":0,"id":"h-[untitled]","replies":[]}}-->

I think that pointing to gravity as an epitome of scientific theory is perhaps a little off. Yes, there are models for gravity in Newtonian mechanics and in general relativity, but as the article on gravity points out, physicists are still struggling (not to say stumped) to provide and empirically substantiate a satisfying theory of gravity that resolves with quantum mechanics. Of course, perhaps this makes gravity an even better example, showing that scientific theories can be at once accepted and incomplete, showing that such a messy state of affairs is the norm for science. If so, it would be nice to mention it in the article. Grizzly