Arguments (inferences) in physics

[Pentcho Valev]

Steven French wrote:

> Pentcho,
> You have raised the same issues and asked the same questions across various lists. I, and others, have repeatedly urged you to do some relevant reading and have suggested that the questions you are asking - in a manner that suggests that no-one else has asked them or that philosophers and physicists alike have been ignoring them - have in fact been discussed in the literature. Some of us are suspicious that your motivation is not to generate honest debate but to spread some form of conspiracy theory (eg your postings on Einstein). If you are genuinely interested in the issue of inconsistency in science then why not read some of the literature on this subject and re-pose your question in the light of what the likes of Priest, Meheus and others have said?
> As for the specific question itself, of course I am not suggesting that it should *only* be given the answer 'no' - there has been considerable discussion of this issue with some arguing that a form of non-standard logic must be applied, others insisting that is not necessary and still others maintaining that inconsistency (understood in various ways) must not be tolerated at all. I am merely suggesting that you do some appropriate background reading before posting what may to some seem a provocative question.
> And its not as if you're some shiny young PhD student or someone who's just entered the field, full of questions and issues to discuss - you are in fact a 'serial poster' who seems intent on posting the same questions across a range of electronic boards and resolutely ignoring the responses given by those who are genuinely interested in debate.
> Its not my ethics that needs examination!

I agree. But my personal qualities do not need examination either. Let us try to find something that does need examination. How about this. I can prove that the redshift factor can be deduced from the premise "The speed of light, as measured by an observer, is dependent on the speed of the light source". In other words, the redshift factor (confirmed experimentally) disproves one of Einstein's postulates. Does that need examination? Of course, the proof is technical and may not be suitable for this list. But then we might discuss the more general problem: FALSE PREMISE LEADING TO A CORRECT RESULT. How is that possible? Could that happen by accident or is the author necessarily a cheater? Where exactly has Einstein managed to "rectify" the deductive
sequence?

Another problem that may need examination. Clausius derived "Entropy always increases" from the premise "Any irreversible process in a closed system has a reversible counterpart that connects the same initial and final states". This premise can be disproved in a non-technical manner by giving almost obvious counterexamples. We have again the problem: FALSE PREMISE LEADING TO....WHAT RESULT? I am sure you will agree that the possible truthfulness or falsehood of "Entropy always increases" needs a lot of examination.

If you still think that I should first read your friends' works (by the way, I have read some of them) before raising the above problems you would not be right.

Pentcho




_______________________________________________________
Mail group "philphys"
ESF Network for Philosophical and
Foundational Problems of Modern Physics
Help & Archive: http://philosophy.elte.hu/philphys.html
_______________________________________________________