🚀 go-pugleaf

On May 28, 1:47 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 5/27/09, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote in philos-l:
>
>
>
>
>
> > There has been an alarming lack of activity in philosophy
> > of science (more precisely, philosophy of physics) circles
> > lately. Sometimes radical explanations can be found:
>
> >http://itisonlyatheory.blogspot.com/2009/04/cult-of-contingency-and-f...
> > "History and philosophy of science (HPS) is dead."
>
> >http://itisonlyatheory.blogspot.com/2009/02/on-decline-of-general-sci...
> > "On the decline of general philosophy of
> > science....Professional philosophy of science (with its own
> > journals and professionals) was born around the turn of the
> > twentieth century. It arose from debates within
> > neo-Kantianism in which epistemology was the first science.
> > In this climate the philosophy of science had a very crucial
> > purpose: if the results of science are the ideal of
> > rationality then philosophy of science is the core of the
> > first science (epistemology or in its Carnapian guise, the
> > logic of science). This project intensified after the shock
> > of the Einsteinian revolution. (It probably died somewhere
> > early in the cold war.)"
>
> > I think May's discussions on chora could clarify (if not
> > partially solve) the problem:
>
> >http://listserv.liv.ac.uk/cgi-bin/wa?A1=ind0905&L=chora
>
> The coexistence of the following two texts, without any philosopher of
> science being able to see (or being allowed to call the attention to)
> the contradiction, proves that philosophy of science has been dead for
> quite a long time:

    Well science itself is just about dead, so Philosophy Of Science
would naturally follow.
    Since a subject that is completey controlled by pompous pinheads
who believe
    that the answer to the question  ?(P=NP) solves all computation
problems
    is not only not science,  it's quite trivially seen to be the
Philosophy of Dark Energy.







>
> http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/relativity_worldbook.html
> NASA: "Michelson and Morley conducted their experiment to measure
> expected differences in the speed of light relative to their
> laboratory. Although light travels extremely rapidly, their experiment
> could measure tiny differences in speed. Surprisingly, Michelson and
> Morley found no difference at all. This result was a great puzzle.
> Physicists tried without success to determine how light could act in a
> manner consistent with both Galilean relativity and the Michelson-
> Morley experiment."
>
> http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00001743/02/Norton.pdf
> John Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as
> evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost
> universally use it as support for the light postulate of special
> relativity......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE
> WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT
> POSTULATE."
>
> If some day philosophers of science somehow come to see (or are
> allowed to call the attention to) the contradiction, philosophy of
> science will be resurrected, a conference will be organized and the
> rallying cry will be:
>
> "Philosophers of science are trying without success to realize why,
> although light acted in a manner consistent with both Galilean
> relativity and the Michelson-Morley experiment, a protective belt
> (Lakatos' terminology) for the ether theory was built by FitzGerald,
> Lorentz, Poincare, a protective belt that later successfully shielded
> Einstein's 1905 false light postulate. The fact that the fraudulent
> protective belt was almost explicit in the writings of Banesh
> Hoffmann, Einstein's apostle, makes the mystery even more painful:http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC"Relativity and Its
> Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann, p.92: "Moreover, if light consists of
> particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just
> thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A
> stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one
> thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not
> independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take
> light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey
> Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus
> automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley
> experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or
> Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the
> temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of
> light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his
> second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought
> of in terms of waves in an ether."
>
> Pentcho Valev
> pva...@yahoo.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -