Arguments (inferences) in physics

[Pentcho Valev]

In axiomatic theories such as thermodynamics or relativity, a deductive
step consists in obtaining a conclusion from a number of premises.
Logicians call the respective procedure argument, inference etc. Authors
of axiomatic theories claim that they have strarted from a small number
of axioms (in the case of relativity only two axioms) and then have,
step by step, obtained breathtaking results. Yet these authors have
never found it suitable to put the deductive steps on a list so that
critics can check their validity, starting with the steps close to the
axioms and finishing with those producing the breathtaking conclusions.
Why? What prevents us from starting from the postulate of constancy of
speed of light, then identifying all the deductive steps leading e.g.
to  the redshift factor and finally checking the validity of all of
them? True, the redshift factor is confirmed by experiment, but in the
absence of any verification of the deductive sequence the following
hypothesis remains actual: The postulate of constancy of speed of light
is a false axiom but still Einstein was able to "deduce" the true result
(the formula of the redshift factor) from it by introducing, somewhere
in the middle of the deductive sequence, invalid but "useful" steps.
Unfortunately scientists prefer to worship at Einstein's portrait and
the problem of logical verification is totally alien to their minds.

Pentcho Valev

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