🚀 go-pugleaf

On Mar 4, 12:30 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Karl Popper: "To this we have to add THE PRINCIPLE OF EMPIRICISM which
> asserts that in science, only observation and experiment may decide
> upon the acceptance or rejection of scientific statements, including
> laws and theories."
>
> If I were in Popper's shoes, I would have written:
>
> "To this we have to add THE PRINCIPLE OF LOGICISM which asserts that
> in science, only logical analysis of the deductive chain may decide
> upon the acceptance or rejection of scientific statements, including
> laws and theories."

Well, I'm sure that's what YOU want, but it's not a principle you'll
find much endorsement for, especially since your notion of "logic" is
not the same as what other people mean by the term.

>
> Example: Einsteiniana gives three incompatible equations showing how
> the speed of light varies with the gravitational potential V:
> Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2), Einstein's 1915 equation c'=c
> (1+2V/c^2) and the constant-speed equation c'=c. The gravitational
> redshift factor (1+V/c^2) measured in 1960 by Pound and Rebka was
> consistent with one of them, c'=c(1+V/c^2), and that was one of the
> reasons why Divine Albert's Divine Theory was gloriously confirmed
> (the other reason was that Divine Albert's Divine Theory had to be
> gloriously confirmed anyway).
>
> Logical analysis shows that c'=c (the speed of light does not vary
> with the gravitational potential) is equivalent to Einstein's 1905
> light postulate (the speed of light does not vary with the speed of
> the light source) whereas c'=c(1+V/c^2) is equivalent to the
> antithesis of the light postulate, the equation c'=c+v given by
> Newton's emission theory of light (v is the speed of the light source
> relative to the observer). Therefore in 1960 Divine Albert's Divine
> Theory should have been rejected rather than gloriously confirmed.
>
> Another example: Logical analysis shows that the conclusion "The bug
> is both dead and alive"http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/HBASE/Relativ/bugrivet.html
> can validly be deduced from Einstein's 1905 light postulate. This is
> REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM par excellence: again, Divine Albert's Divine
> Theory should have been rejected.
>
> Pentcho Valev
> pva...@yahoo.com