🚀 go-pugleaf

For the sake of argument, let those who are still waiting for a
revolution of Kuhnian type try to imagine anomalies that may some day
undermine the supreme law of Nature:

http://web.mit.edu/keenansymposium/overview/background/index.html
Arthur Eddington: "The law that entropy always increases, holds, I
think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature. If someone
points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in
disagreement with Maxwell's equationsthen so much the worse for
Maxwell's equations. If it is found to be contradicted by
observationwell, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes.
But if your theory is found to be against the second law of
thermodynamics, I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to
collapse in deepest humiliation."

They will fail. Historically the deduction of the supreme law involved
so much obscurity, invalidity and falsehood that the final words
"entropy" and "increases" are devoid of any meaning. On the other
hand, postscientists vulgarize the supreme law in such a way (e.g.
"Air molecules never gather spontaneously in the corner of the room")
that falsifying experiments are not even imaginable.

Postscientism implies absurd theories that are INHERENT in our
civilization. They are dying but this does not mean that a young
developing society is getting rid of its imperfections. Rather, dying
absurd theories characterize the senile decay of the civilization.

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

On Jul 21 Pentcho Valev wrote:
> It seems revolution in science in Kuhnian sense occurs only when a
> consistent but dull theory is replaced by an inconsistent but exciting
> one. Since Newton's emission theory of light had explained everything
> within its scope in 18th century, at the end of 19th century it seemed
> so archaic and dull that scientists did not even consider it when they
> were trying to interpret the Michelson-Morley experiment (although in
> 1887 the emission theory was the only one able to explain the result
> of the experiment). In other words, a pre-revolutionary situation in
> science is characterized by unbearable boredom, not by an unbearably
> large set of anomalies as Kuhn teaches. Initially the inconsistency
> (e.g. Einstein's relativity) cures the boredom but eventually comes to
> a dead end and science simply dies. Then even epitaph-like texts are
> unable to provoke any discussion, let alone development:
>
> http://www.nyas.org/publications/UpdateUnbound.asp?UpdateID=41
> Lee Smolin: "Then, about 30 years ago, something changed. The last
> time there was a definitive advance in our knowledge of fundamental
> physics was the construction ofthe theory we call the standard model
> of particle physics in 1973. The last time a fundamental theory was
> proposed that has since gotten any support from experiment was a
> theory about the very early universe called inflation, which was
> proposed in 1981....A growing number of theoretical physicists, myself
> among them, see the present situation as a crisis that requires us to
> reexamine the assumptions behind our so-far unsuccessful theories. I
> should emphasize that this crisis involves only fundamental physics
> that part of physics concerned with discovering the laws of nature."
>
> 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.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://allais.maurice.free.fr/Paradoxe.htm
> Maurice Allais: "De là a résulté une incroyable situation sans aucun
> précédent dans toute l'histoire : la domination dogmatique et
> intolérante pendant un siècle d'une théorie fausse, la Théorie de la
> Relativité, résultant elle-même du plagiat indiscutable d'une
> incontestable erreur. Les conséquences néfastes qui en ont résulté
> pour la science ont été incalculables, l'orientation totale pendant un
> siècle de la science dans une voie erronée, et une régression de la
> pensée scientifique qui n 'a cessé de constituer un obstacle
> insurmontable sur la voie du progrès."
>
> 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."