🚀 go-pugleaf

Pentcho Valev wrote on Tue, 21 Jul 2009 09:34:19 -0700:

Troll

> 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





-- 
http://www.canonicalscience.org/