PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE AS SYCOPHANCY

Philosophers of science know that, for a deductive theory, a single
false or absurd consequence shows that a postulate is false. If
Einstein's 1905 light postulate predicts, through its consequences,
that an 80m long pole can be trapped inside a 40m long barn
(generally, that an infinitely long object can be trapped inside an
infinitely short container) and that a bug can be both dead and alive,
then EINSTEIN'S 1905 LIGHT POSTULATE IS FALSE:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...barn_pole.html
"These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors
at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a
switch. You also have a pole, 80m long, which of course won't fit in
the barn. Now someone takes the pole and tries to run (at nearly the
speed of light) through the barn with the pole horizontal. Special
Relativity (SR) says that a moving object is contracted in the
direction of motion: this is called the Lorentz Contraction. So, if
the pole is set in motion lengthwise, then it will contract in the
reference frame of a stationary observer.....So, as the pole passes
through the barn, there is an instant when it is completely within the
barn. At that instant, you close both doors simultaneously, with your
switch. Of course, you open them again pretty quickly, but at least
momentarily you had the contracted pole shut up in your barn. The
runner emerges from the far door unscathed.....If the doors are kept
shut the rod will obviously smash into the barn door at one end. If
the door withstands this the leading end of the rod will come to rest
in the frame of reference of the stationary observer. There can be no
such thing as a rigid rod in relativity so the trailing end will not
stop immediately and the rod will be compressed beyond the amount it
was Lorentz contracted. If it does not explode under the strain and it
is sufficiently elastic it will come to rest and start to spring back
to its natural shape but since it is too big for the barn the other
end is now going to crash into the back door and the rod will be
trapped in a compressed state inside the barn."

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu.../bugrivet.html
"The bug-rivet paradox is a variation on the twin paradox and is
similar to the pole-barn paradox.....The end of the rivet hits the
bottom of the hole before the head of the rivet hits the wall. So it
looks like the bug is squashed.....All this is nonsense from the bug's
point of view. The rivet head hits the wall when the rivet end is just
0.35 cm down in the hole! The rivet doesn't get close to the
bug....The paradox is not resolved."

In order to preclude any REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM falsification of
deductive theories, philosophers of science have devised numerous
irrelevant concepts used as camouflage. Here is an example:

W. H. Newton-Smith, THE RATIONALITY OF SCIENCE, Routledge, London,
1981, p. 55: "A theory is a set of assertions and if the number of
assertions in a theory were finite we might initially seek to
explicate the notion of relative verisimilitude in terms of the number
of truths and the number of falsehoods contained within the theories.
To illustrate this, suppose that theories T1 and T2 for some subject
matter each contain ten assertions and that T1 makes five false and
five true claims and that T2 makes nine true and one false claim. In
this case we would say that T2 is nearer the truth than T1.
Unfortunately, we cannot proceed in this fashion with scientific
theories, for such theories contain an infinite number of assertions.
A theory contains all the consequences of the postulates and this set,
called the deductive closure of the postulates, is INFINITE IN SIZE."

Of course, the number of the consequences deduced from the postulates
is FINITE but this trivial truth, if officially adopted, would make
most philosophical accounts of deductive science irrelevant. So
philosophers of science's protective strategy is to perpetuate the
lie: The set of the consequences is "infinite in size" and that's it.
And philosophers of science will always stop short, as though by
instinct, at the threshold of the dangerous thought:

"For a deductive theory, a single false or absurd consequence
falsifies the theory"

http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com...html#seventeen
George Orwell: "Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as
though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It
includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive
logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are
inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of
thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction.
Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity."

Pentcho Valev