Physics Lournal

Powered by 🌱Roam Garden

Also, no analysis of such things is likely to be "final and exhaustive", because science is foremost an ongoing process, which means it is unfolding in the very moment that one seeks to explain it. And of course, because this process is one of the "tangled affairs of men", one can consider the following excerpts from Against Method:

"History generally, and the history of revolutions in particular, is always richer in content, more varied, more many-sided, more lively and subtle than even the best historian and the best methodologist can imagine" - Lenin.

, as perhaps Oppenheimer rightfully understood just how recursive and continuous the process of science was, being at the forefront of one of, if not the most generative era, and that truly explaining what all took place, would not be feasible.

Referenced in

Atom and Void (Essays on Science & Community)

Oppenheimer seems to somewhat agree with my thoughts on finality and exhaustiveness, as he says "Noting what men have said about what they thought, who...thought it, and why he thought it, one finds...that the contingent and unpredictable, peculiar greatnesses and blindnesses of...men play a determining part". These are the "act(s) and decision(s) of men" to which Butterfield refers, the "unpredictable character of the ultimate of consequences" of which are the changes Oppenheimer refers to.