🚀 go-pugleaf

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."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com