🚀 go-pugleaf

A second decisive step in the transition from Postscientism to Science
will be taken as an OFFICIAL answer to the following question is given
IN PUBLIC:

When Einstein introduced his false light postulate in 1905, was
deductive science already in big trouble? The scientific community was
singing, with gay abandon, the praises of the law of entropy increase
which held "the supreme position among the laws of Nature" but later
the selfsame law was characterized as "a red herring" and the science
based on it as "a dismal swamp of obscurity" or "a prime example to
show that physicists are not exempt from the madness of crowds":

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 equations - then so much the worse for
Maxwell's equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation
- well, 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."

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00000313/
Jos Uffink: "The historian of science and mathematician Truesdell made
a detailed study of the historical development of thermodynamics in
the period 1822-1854. He characterises the theory, even in its present
state, as 'a dismal swamp of obscurity' and 'a prime example to show
that physicists are not exempt from the madness of crowds'. He is
outright cynical about the respect with which nonmathematicians treat
the Second Law: "Clausius verbal statement of the second law makes no
sense [. . . ]. All that remains is a Mosaic prohibition; a century of
philosophers and journalists have acclaimed this commandment; a
century of mathematicians have shuddered and averted their eyes from
the unclean. Seven times in the past thirty years have I tried to
follow the argument Clausius offers [. . . ] and seven times has it
blanked and gravelled me. [. . . ] I cannot explain what I cannot
understand." From this anthology it emerges that although many
prominent physicists are firmly convinced of, and express admiration
for the Second Law, there are also serious complaints, especially from
mathematicians, about a lack of clarity and rigour in its formulation.
At the very least one can say that the Second Law suffers from an
image problem: its alleged eminence and venerability is not perceived
by everyone who has been exposed to it. What is it that makes this
physical law so obstreperous that every attempt at a clear formulation
seems to have failed? Is it just the usual sloppiness of physicists?
Or is there a deeper problem? And what exactly is the connection with
the arrow of time and irreversibility? Could it be that this is also
just based on bluff? Perhaps readers will shrug their shoulders over
these questions. Thermodynamics is obsolete; for a better
understanding of the problem we should turn to more recent,
statistical theories. But even then the questions we are about to
study have more than a purely historical importance. The problem of
reproducing the Second Law, perhaps in an adapted version, remains one
of the toughest, and controversial problems in statistical
physics.....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."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com