🚀 go-pugleaf

Everybody, even the journal Nature, even the journal Science, even the
Royal Society, even Athel Cornish-Bowden (my biographer), know the sad
truth about deductive science, and they are constantly hinting at the
tragedy, and they want to get rid of the absurdity, and yet... nothing
can be done:

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/hutchison/080616
"Like bronze idols that are hollow inside, Einstein built a cluster of
"Potemkin villages," which are false fronts with nothing behind them.
Grigori Potemkin (17391791) was a general-field marshal, Russian
statesman, and favorite of Empress Catherine the Great. He is alleged
to have built facades of non-existent villages along desolate
stretches of the Dnieper River to impress Catherine as she sailed to
the Crimea in 1787. Actors posing as happy peasants stood in front of
these pretty stage sets and waved to the pleased Empress."

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a909857880
The Ideology of Relativity: The Case of the Clock Paradox
Peter Hayes: "The argument that Einstein fomented an ideological
rather than a scientific revolution helps to explain of one of the
features of this revolution that puzzled Kuhn: despite the apparent
scope of the general theory, very little has come out of it. Viewing
relativity theory as an ideology also helps to account for Poppers
doubts over whether special theory can be retained, given experimental
results in quantum mechanics and Einsteins questionable approach to
defining simultaneity. Both Kuhn and Popper have looked to the other
branch of the theory - Popper to the general and Kuhn to the special -
to try and retain their view of Einstein as a revolutionary scientist.
According to the view proposed here, this only indicates how special
and general theories function together as an ideology, as when one
side of the theory is called into question, the other can be called
upon to rescue it. The triumph of relativity theory represents the
triumph of ideology not only in the profession of physics bur also in
the philosophy of science. These conclusions are of considerable
interest to both theoretical physics and to social epistemology. It
would, however, be naïve to think that theoretical physicists will
take the slightest notice of them."

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00000313/
JOS UFFINK: "This summary leads to the question whether it is fruitful
to see irreversibility or time-asymmetry as the essence of the second
law. Is it not more straightforward, in view of the unargued
statements of Kelvin, the bold claims of Clausius and the strained
attempts of Planck, to give up this idea? I believe that Ehrenfest-
Afanassjewa was right in her verdict that the discussion about the
arrow of time as expressed in the second law of the thermodynamics is
actually a RED HERRING."

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v433/n7023/full/433218a.html
In the journal Nature: "EINSTEIN RESTORED FAITH IN THE
UNINTELLIGIBILITY OF SCIENCE. Everyone knew that Einstein had done
something important in 1905 (and again in 1915) but almost nobody
could tell you exactly what it was. When Einstein was interviewed for
a Dutch newspaper in 1921, he attributed his mass appeal to the
mystery of his work for the ordinary person: "Does it make a silly
impression on me, here and yonder, about my theories of which they
cannot understand a word? I think it is funny and also interesting to
observe. I am sure that it is the mystery of non-understanding that
appeals to themit impresses them, it has the colour and the appeal of
the mysterious." Relativity was a fashionable notion. It promised to
sweep away old absolutist notions and refurbish science with modern
ideas. In art and literature too, revolutionary changes were doing
away with old conventions and standards. ALL THINGS WERE BEING MADE
NEW. EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY SUITED THE MOOD. Nobody got very excited
about Einstein's brownian motion or his photoelectric effect but
RELATIVITY PROMISED TO TURN THE WORLD INSIDE OUT."

http://www.newstin.com/tag/us/112417640
"Albert Einstein strengthened science through his contributions, but
he may have inadvertently crippled science education through his
example. This notion is supported by an editorial, "Redefining Science
Education," published in January by Bruce Alberts, editor in chief of
the journal Science. His main concern is that "many college-educated
adults in the United States," including teachers, "fail to understand
that science is a way of knowing completely different from mysticism,
tradition and faith." Science is based on "evidence that can be
logically and independently verified," rather than on personal
authority. Most of the public accepted Einstein's 1915 theory of
general relativity based on his authority, rather than on the evidence
presented."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/3338512/Think-big-like-Einstein.html
Martin Rees: "Cynics have said that Einstein might as well have gone
fishing from 1920 onwards. Although there's something rather noble
about the way he persevered in his attempts to reach far beyond his
grasp, in some respects THE EINSTEIN CULT SENDS THE WRONG SIGNAL."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/6057362/Give-scientists-the-freedom-to-be-wrong.html
Martin Rees: "Over the past week, two stories in the press have
suggested that scientists have been very wrong about some very big
issues. First, a new paper seemed to suggest that dark energy the
mysterious force that makes up three quarters of the universe, and is
pushing the galaxies further apart might not even exist. (...) And if
we do arrive at such a unified theory, will it invalidate the efforts
of Newton and Einstein or all of the modern physicists who have tried
to explain the inexplicable? Not a bit of it. Scientists know that
they can never reach finality. Cynics said that Einstein might as well
have gone fishing from 1920 onwards, given the failure of much of his
research." Lord Rees is President of the Royal Society

http://www.beilstein-institut.de/bozen2004/proceedings/CornishBowden/CornishBowden.htm
ATHEL CORNISH-BOWDEN: "The concept of entropy was introduced to
thermodynamics by Clausius, who deliberately chose an obscure term for
it, wanting a word based on Greek roots that would sound similar to
"energy". In this way he hoped to have a word that would mean the same
to everyone regardless of their language, and, as Cooper [2] remarked,
he succeeded in this way in finding a word that meant the same to
everyone: NOTHING. From the beginning it proved a very difficult
concept for other thermodynamicists, even including such accomplished
mathematicians as Kelvin and Maxwell; Kelvin, indeed, despite his own
major contributions to the subject, never appreciated the idea of
entropy [3]. The difficulties that Clausius created have continued to
the present day, with the result that a fundamental idea that is
absolutely necessary for understanding the theory of chemical
equilibria continues to give trouble, not only to students but also to
scientists who need the concept for their work."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com