PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE AS SYCOPHANCY

W. H. Newton-Smith, THE RATIONALITY OF SCIENCE, Routledge, London,
1981, p. 14:
"...all physical theories in the past have had their heyday and have
eventually been rejected as false. Indeed, there is inductive support
for a pessimistic induction: any theory will be discovered to be false
within, say 200 years of being propounded. (...) Indeed the evidence
might even be held to support the conclusion that no theory that will
ever be discovered by the human race is strictly speaking true. (...)
The rationalist (who is a realist) is likely to respond by positing an
interim goal for the scientific enterprise. This is the goal of
getting nearer the truth. In this case the inductive argument outlined
above is accepted but its sting is removed. For accepting that
argument is compatible with maintaining that CURRENT THEORIES, while
strictly speaking false, ARE GETTING NEARER THE TRUTH."

The pessimistic induction separately introduced by Putnam and Laudan
is popular among philosophers of science but it is incompatible with
deductivism. Consider Einstein's 1905 light postulate:

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ "...light is
always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is
independent of the state of motion of the emitting body."

By a theory I shall mean the deductive closure of the postulate, that
is, the set of all its consequences deduced validly and in the absence
of false or absurd auxiliary hypotheses. If the light postulate is
true, then all its consequences are true, and IN THIS SENSE the theory
is absolutely true.

If Einstein's 1905 light postulate is false, then its antithesis, the
equation c'=c+v given by Newton's emission theory of light, is true.
This can easily be seen on close inspection of the Michelson-Morley
experiment:

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/arch.../02/Norton.pdf
John Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as
evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost
universally use it as support for the light postulate of special
relativity......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE
WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT
POSTULATE."

http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC
"Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann
p.92: "Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had
suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one,
the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding
train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the
speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object
emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume
that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to
Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null
result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to
contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as
we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null
result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian
ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more
or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether."

Therefore the respective theory (the set of all consequences of the
antithesis, c'=c+v, deduced validly and in the absence of false or
absurd auxiliary hypotheses) is absolutely true in the sense that all
its conclusions are true.

Clearly if "theory" is properly defined the pessimistic induction is
unjustified. The transition from Newtonian to relativistic mechanics
was either a transition from absolutely false to absolutely true or a
transition from absolutely true to absolutely false.

Pentcho Valev

Pentcho Valev wrote:
W. H. Newton-Smith, THE RATIONALITY OF SCIENCE, Routledge, London,
1981, p. 14:
"...all physical theories in the past have had their heyday and have
eventually been rejected as false. Indeed, there is inductive support
for a pessimistic induction: any theory will be discovered to be false
within, say 200 years of being propounded. (...) Indeed the evidence
might even be held to support the conclusion that no theory that will
ever be discovered by the human race is strictly speaking true. (...)
The rationalist (who is a realist) is likely to respond by positing an
interim goal for the scientific enterprise. This is the goal of
getting nearer the truth. In this case the inductive argument outlined
above is accepted but its sting is removed. For accepting that
argument is compatible with maintaining that CURRENT THEORIES, while
strictly speaking false, ARE GETTING NEARER THE TRUTH."

The pessimistic induction separately introduced by Putnam and Laudan
is popular among philosophers of science but it is incompatible with
deductivism. Consider Einstein's 1905 light postulate:

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ "...light is
always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is
independent of the state of motion of the emitting body."

By a theory I shall mean the deductive closure of the postulate, that
is, the set of all its consequences deduced validly and in the absence
of false or absurd auxiliary hypotheses. If the light postulate is
true, then all its consequences are true, and IN THIS SENSE the theory
is absolutely true.

If Einstein's 1905 light postulate is false, then its antithesis, the
equation c'=c+v given by Newton's emission theory of light, is true.
This can easily be seen on close inspection of the Michelson-Morley
experiment:

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/arch.../02/Norton.pdf
John Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as
evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost
universally use it as support for the light postulate of special
relativity......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE
WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT
POSTULATE."

http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC
"Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann
p.92: "Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had
suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one,
the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding
train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the
speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object
emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume
that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to
Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null
result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to
contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as
we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null
result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian
ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more
or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether."

Therefore the respective theory (the set of all consequences of the
antithesis, c'=c+v, deduced validly and in the absence of false or
absurd auxiliary hypotheses) is absolutely true in the sense that all
its conclusions are true.

Clearly if "theory" is properly defined the pessimistic induction is
unjustified. The transition from Newtonian to relativistic mechanics
was either a transition from absolutely false to absolutely true or a
transition from absolutely true to absolutely false.

Pentcho Valev

"Pentcho Valev"
...

W. H. Newton-Smith, THE RATIONALITY OF SCIENCE, Routledge, London,
1981, p. 14:
"...all physical theories in the past have had their heyday and have
eventually been rejected as false. Indeed, there is inductive support
for a pessimistic induction: any theory will be discovered to be false
within, say 200 years of being propounded. (...) Indeed the evidence
might even be held to support the conclusion that no theory that will
ever be discovered by the human race is strictly speaking true. (...)
The rationalist (who is a realist) is likely to respond by positing an
interim goal for the scientific enterprise. This is the goal of
getting nearer the truth. In this case the inductive argument outlined
above is accepted but its sting is removed. For accepting that
argument is compatible with maintaining that CURRENT THEORIES, while
strictly speaking false, ARE GETTING NEARER THE TRUTH."

The pessimistic induction separately introduced by Putnam and Laudan
is popular among philosophers of science but it is incompatible with
deductivism. Consider Einstein's 1905 light postulate:

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ "...light is
always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is
independent of the state of motion of the emitting body."

By a theory I shall mean the deductive closure of the postulate, that
is, the set of all its consequences deduced validly and in the absence
of false or absurd auxiliary hypotheses. If the light postulate is
true, then all its consequences are true, and IN THIS SENSE the theory
is absolutely true.

If Einstein's 1905 light postulate is false, then its antithesis, the
equation c'=c+v given by Newton's emission theory of light, is true.
This can easily be seen on close inspection of the Michelson-Morley
experiment:

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/arch.../02/Norton.pdf
John Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as
evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost
universally use it as support for the light postulate of special
relativity......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE
WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT
POSTULATE."

http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC
"Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann
p.92: "Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had
suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one,
the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding
train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the
speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object
emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume
that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to
Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null
result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to
contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as
we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null
result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian
ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more
or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether."

Therefore the respective theory (the set of all consequences of the
antithesis, c'=c+v, deduced validly and in the absence of false or
absurd auxiliary hypotheses) is absolutely true in the sense that all
its conclusions are true.

Clearly if "theory" is properly defined the pessimistic induction is
unjustified. The transition from Newtonian to relativistic mechanics
was either a transition from absolutely false to absolutely true or a
transition from absolutely true to absolutely false.

Pentcho Valev


A________B________________C

If
BC / t = c
it
(AB + BC) / t c for AB 0
It is the only possibility:
one observer and one measurement.

Edward Robak* from Nowa Huta
~°~
lover of wisdom and not only

On Mar 26, 1:21*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
W. H. Newton-Smith, THE RATIONALITY OF SCIENCE, Routledge, London,
1981, p. 14:
"...all physical theories in the past have had their heyday and have
eventually been rejected as false. Indeed, there is inductive support
for a pessimistic induction: any theory will be discovered to be false
within, say 200 years of being propounded. (...) Indeed the evidence
might even be held to support the conclusion that no theory that will
ever be discovered by the human race is strictly speaking true. (...)
The rationalist (who is a realist) is likely to respond by positing an
interim goal for the scientific enterprise. This is the goal of
getting nearer the truth. In this case the inductive argument outlined
above is accepted but its sting is removed. For accepting that
argument is compatible with maintaining that CURRENT THEORIES, while
strictly speaking false, ARE GETTING NEARER THE TRUTH."

The pessimistic induction separately introduced by Putnam and Laudan
is popular among philosophers of science but it is incompatible with
deductivism. Consider Einstein's 1905 light postulate:

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/"...light is
always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is
independent of the state of motion of the emitting body."

By a theory I shall mean the deductive closure of the postulate, that
is, the set of all its consequences deduced validly and in the absence
of false or absurd auxiliary hypotheses. If the light postulate is
true, then all its consequences are true, and IN THIS SENSE the theory
is absolutely true.

If Einstein's 1905 light postulate is false, then its antithesis, the
equation c'=c+v given by Newton's emission theory of light, is true.
This can easily be seen on close inspection of the Michelson-Morley
experiment:

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/arch.../02/Norton.pdf
John Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as
evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost
universally use it as support for the light postulate of special
relativity......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE
WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT
POSTULATE."

http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC
"Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann
p.92: "Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had
suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one,
the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding
train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the
speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object
emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume
that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to
Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null
result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to
contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as
we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null
result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian
ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more
or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether."

Therefore the respective theory (the set of all consequences of the
antithesis, c'=c+v, deduced validly and in the absence of false or
absurd auxiliary hypotheses) is absolutely true in the sense that all
its conclusions are true.

Clearly if "theory" is properly defined the pessimistic induction is
unjustified. The transition from Newtonian to relativistic mechanics
was either a transition from absolutely false to absolutely true or a
transition from absolutely true to absolutely false.

Pentcho Valev

Where is it written that the Michelson-Morley null can be reduced
to:
Either A or B.
Not A
Therefore B.

Seems to me that exclusion of an unknown C is arbitrary.

John Jones wrote:
Pentcho Valev wrote:
W. H. Newton-Smith, THE RATIONALITY OF SCIENCE, Routledge, London,
1981, p. 14:
"...all physical theories in the past have had their heyday and have
eventually been rejected as false. Indeed, there is inductive support
for a pessimistic induction: any theory will be discovered to be false
within, say 200 years of being propounded. (...) Indeed the evidence
might even be held to support the conclusion that no theory that will
ever be discovered by the human race is strictly speaking true. (...)
The rationalist (who is a realist) is likely to respond by positing an
interim goal for the scientific enterprise. This is the goal of
getting nearer the truth. In this case the inductive argument outlined
above is accepted but its sting is removed. For accepting that
argument is compatible with maintaining that CURRENT THEORIES, while
strictly speaking false, ARE GETTING NEARER THE TRUTH."

The pessimistic induction separately introduced by Putnam and Laudan
is popular among philosophers of science but it is incompatible with
deductivism. Consider Einstein's 1905 light postulate:

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ "...light is
always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is
independent of the state of motion of the emitting body."

By a theory I shall mean the deductive closure of the postulate, that
is, the set of all its consequences deduced validly and in the absence
of false or absurd auxiliary hypotheses. If the light postulate is
true, then all its consequences are true, and IN THIS SENSE the theory
is absolutely true.

If Einstein's 1905 light postulate is false, then its antithesis, the
equation c'=c+v given by Newton's emission theory of light, is true.
This can easily be seen on close inspection of the Michelson-Morley
experiment:

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/arch.../02/Norton.pdf
John Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as
evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost
universally use it as support for the light postulate of special
relativity......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE
WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT
POSTULATE."

http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC
"Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann
p.92: "Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had
suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one,
the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding
train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the
speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object
emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume
that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to
Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null
result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to
contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as
we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null
result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian
ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more
or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether."

Therefore the respective theory (the set of all consequences of the
antithesis, c'=c+v, deduced validly and in the absence of false or
absurd auxiliary hypotheses) is absolutely true in the sense that all
its conclusions are true.

Clearly if "theory" is properly defined the pessimistic induction is
unjustified. The transition from Newtonian to relativistic mechanics
was either a transition from absolutely false to absolutely true or a
transition from absolutely true to absolutely false.

Pentcho Valev

Pentcho Valev wrote:
W. H. Newton-Smith, THE RATIONALITY OF SCIENCE, Routledge, London,
1981, p. 14:
"...all physical theories in the past have had their heyday and have
eventually been rejected as false. Indeed, there is inductive support
for a pessimistic induction: any theory will be discovered to be false
within, say 200 years of being propounded. (...) Indeed the evidence
might even be held to support the conclusion that no theory that will
ever be discovered by the human race is strictly speaking true. (...)
The rationalist (who is a realist) is likely to respond by positing an
interim goal for the scientific enterprise. This is the goal of
getting nearer the truth. In this case the inductive argument outlined
above is accepted but its sting is removed. For accepting that
argument is compatible with maintaining that CURRENT THEORIES, while
strictly speaking false, ARE GETTING NEARER THE TRUTH."

The pessimistic induction separately introduced by Putnam and Laudan
is popular among philosophers of science but it is incompatible with
deductivism. Consider Einstein's 1905 light postulate:

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ "...light is
always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is
independent of the state of motion of the emitting body."

By a theory I shall mean the deductive closure of the postulate, that
is, the set of all its consequences deduced validly and in the absence
of false or absurd auxiliary hypotheses. If the light postulate is
true, then all its consequences are true, and IN THIS SENSE the theory
is absolutely true.

If Einstein's 1905 light postulate is false, then its antithesis, the
equation c'=c+v given by Newton's emission theory of light, is true.
This can easily be seen on close inspection of the Michelson-Morley
experiment:

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/arch.../02/Norton.pdf
John Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as
evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost
universally use it as support for the light postulate of special
relativity......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE
WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT
POSTULATE."

http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC
"Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann
p.92: "Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had
suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one,
the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding
train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the
speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object
emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume
that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to
Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null
result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to
contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as
we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null
result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian
ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more
or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether."

Therefore the respective theory (the set of all consequences of the
antithesis, c'=c+v, deduced validly and in the absence of false or
absurd auxiliary hypotheses) is absolutely true in the sense that all
its conclusions are true.

Clearly if "theory" is properly defined the pessimistic induction is
unjustified. The transition from Newtonian to relativistic mechanics
was either a transition from absolutely false to absolutely true or a
transition from absolutely true to absolutely false.

Pentcho Valev

On Mar 27, 2:32*pm, John Jones wrote:
Pentcho Valev wrote:

A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage
than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not
independent of the motion of the object emitting it.

Since JJ never adds his own 2 cents worth to someone else's words,
i will do it for him:
Because the speed of a particle is not independent of the motion of
the object viewing it, the amount of damage a stone thrown from a
speeding train can do depends on the motion of the object it hits.

glird

Pentcho Valev wrote:
Clearly if "theory" is properly defined the pessimistic induction
is
unjustified. The transition from Newtonian to relativistic
mechanics
was either a transition from absolutely false to absolutely true or
a
transition from absolutely true to absolutely false.

No matter how you define "theory", the ensuing conclusion is false.

glird

http://bertie.ccsu.edu/~dsb/naturesc...i/Lakatos.html
"Lakatos distinguished between two parts of a scientific theory: its
"hard core" which contains its basic assumptions (or axioms, when set
out formally and explicitly), and its "protective belt", a surrounding
defensive set of "ad hoc" (produced for the occasion) hypotheses.
(...) In Lakatos' model, we have to explicitly take into account the
"ad hoc hypotheses" which serve as the protective belt. The protective
belt serves to deflect "refuting" propositions from the core
assumptions..."

Karl Popper: "On the other hand, I also realized that we must not
exclude immunizations, not even all which introduce ad hoc auxiliary
hypothesis....All this shows not only that some degree of dogmatism is
fruitful, even in science, but also that logically speaking
falsifiability or testability cannot be regarded as a very sharp
criterion."

Historically the protective belt, which initially appeared as the
FitzGerald-Lorentz ad hoc auxiliary hypothesis introducing length
contraction and eventually developed into Lorentz transformations, was
created before the hard core (Divine Albert's 1905 postulates).
Without the protective belt, Divine Albert's postulates (more
precisely, his light postulate) would have been immediately refuted by
the Michelson-Morley experiment:

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/arch.../02/Norton.pdf
John Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as
evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost
universally use it as support for the light postulate of special
relativity......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE
WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT
POSTULATE."

http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC
"Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann
p.92: "Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had
suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one,
the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding
train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the
speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object
emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume
that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to
Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null
result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to
contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as
we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null
result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian
ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more
or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether."

James H. Smith "Introduction à la relativité" EDISCIENCE 1969 pp.
39-41: "Si la lumière était un flot de particules mécaniques obéissant
aux lois de la mécanique, il n'y aurait aucune difficulté à comprendre
les résultats de l'expérience de Michelson-Morley.... Supposons, par
exemple, qu'une fusée se déplace avec une vitesse (1/2)c par rapport à
un observateur et qu'un rayon de lumière parte de son nez. Si la
vitesse de la lumière signifiait vitesse des "particules" de la
lumière par rapport à leur source, alors ces "particules" de lumière
se déplaceraient à la vitesse c/2+c=(3/2)c par rapport à
l'observateur. Mais ce comportement ne ressemble pas du tout à celui
d'une onde, car les ondes se propagent à une certaine vitesse par
rapport au milieu dans lequel elles se développent et non pas à une
certaine vitesse par rapport à leur source..... Il nous faut insister
sur le fait suivant: QUAND EINSTEIN PROPOSA QUE LA VITESSE DE LA
LUMIERE SOIT INDEPENDANTE DE CELLE DE LA SOURCE, IL N'EN EXISTAIT
AUCUNE PREUVE EXPERIMENTALE. IL LE POSTULA PAR PURE NECESSITE
LOGIQUE."

Pentcho Valev wrote:

W. H. Newton-Smith, THE RATIONALITY OF SCIENCE, Routledge, London,
1981, p. 14:
"...all physical theories in the past have had their heyday and have
eventually been rejected as false. Indeed, there is inductive support
for a pessimistic induction: any theory will be discovered to be false
within, say 200 years of being propounded. (...) Indeed the evidence
might even be held to support the conclusion that no theory that will
ever be discovered by the human race is strictly speaking true. (...)
The rationalist (who is a realist) is likely to respond by positing an
interim goal for the scientific enterprise. This is the goal of
getting nearer the truth. In this case the inductive argument outlined
above is accepted but its sting is removed. For accepting that
argument is compatible with maintaining that CURRENT THEORIES, while
strictly speaking false, ARE GETTING NEARER THE TRUTH."

The pessimistic induction separately introduced by Putnam and Laudan
is popular among philosophers of science but it is incompatible with
deductivism. Consider Einstein's 1905 light postulate:

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ "...light is
always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is
independent of the state of motion of the emitting body."

By a theory I shall mean the deductive closure of the postulate, that
is, the set of all its consequences deduced validly and in the absence
of false or absurd auxiliary hypotheses. If the light postulate is
true, then all its consequences are true, and IN THIS SENSE the theory
is absolutely true.

If Einstein's 1905 light postulate is false, then its antithesis, the
equation c'=c+v given by Newton's emission theory of light, is true.
This can easily be seen on close inspection of the Michelson-Morley
experiment. Therefore the respective theory (the set of all
consequences of the antithesis, c'=c+v, deduced validly and in the
absence of false or absurd auxiliary hypotheses) is absolutely true in
the sense that all its conclusions are true.

Clearly if "theory" is properly defined the pessimistic induction is
unjustified. The transition from Newtonian to relativistic mechanics
was either a transition from absolutely false to absolutely true or a
transition from absolutely true to absolutely false.

Pentcho Valev

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