| Author |
Message |
Pentcho Valev
science forum Guru
Joined: 09 May 2005
Posts: 380
|
 Posted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 6:17 am Post subject:
REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM
|
|
|
Popper's idea that theories should be tested only through experimental
verification of final results is misleading. A theory could start with
a false premise (e.g. "Entropy is a state function" or "The speed of
light is independent of the speed of the light source"), then devastate
any rationality in science but at some stage abandon for a while the
false premise and appropriate conclusions deduced from true premises.
Then logical verification of the deductive chains inside the theory is
much more important and in the process the crucial sanitary procedure
should be reductio ad absurdum - something forgotten in the era of
Postscientism. See Problem 7 ("Seeing behind the stick"), p. 47
(solution on p. 54), in
http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~phys16/Textbook/ch10.pdf
Imagine that the mark seen "behind the stick" possesses a pawl which,
released by the back end of the stick, erects so that the stick remains
trapped between the pawl and the wall. If the person who tests the
theory can see the mark, he/she can also see the erection of the pawl
and then the trapped stick as well. How long is the trapped stick? We
have reductio ad absurdum - there are two incompatible answers. In a
normal science the theory should be rejected.
Pentcho Valev |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Rupert
science forum Guru
Joined: 18 May 2005
Posts: 372
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 8:15 am Post subject:
Re: REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM
|
|
|
Pentcho Valev wrote:
| Quote: | Popper's idea that theories should be tested only through experimental
verification of final results is misleading. A theory could start with
a false premise (e.g. "Entropy is a state function" or "The speed of
light is independent of the speed of the light source"),
|
What I would like to know is whether Popper would have thought that
statements like these can be true or false, and if so what account he
would have given of what it takes for them to be true or false. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
yt56erd
science forum Guru
Joined: 13 May 2005
Posts: 313
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 8:39 am Post subject:
Re: REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM
|
|
|
Pentcho Valev wrote:
| Quote: | Popper's idea that theories should be tested only through experimental
verification of final results is misleading. A theory could start with
a false premise (e.g. "Entropy is a state function" or "The speed of
light is independent of the speed of the light source"), then devastate
any rationality in science but at some stage abandon for a while the
false premise and appropriate conclusions deduced from true premises.
|
pentcho vulva is wrong again. her lack of undertanding is impressive.
penis valev obviously has no way of telling the difference between
scientifically valid and true.
nevermind. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
donstockbauer@hotmail.com
science forum Guru
Joined: 11 Sep 2005
Posts: 733
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 10:18 am Post subject:
Re: REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM
|
|
|
Cranks Reply wrote:
| Quote: | Pentcho Valev wrote:
Popper's idea that theories should be tested only through experimental
verification of final results is misleading. A theory could start with
a false premise (e.g. "Entropy is a state function" or "The speed of
light is independent of the speed of the light source"), then devastate
any rationality in science but at some stage abandon for a while the
false premise and appropriate conclusions deduced from true premises.
pentcho vulva is wrong again. her lack of undertanding is impressive.
penis valev obviously has no way of telling the difference between
scientifically valid and true.
nevermind.
|
The downfall of free will - the ability to post nonsense, take up
precious computer resources and give the Tearists a leg up in their
battle against us. Pent-up-hostility-cho - you don't realize this, do
you??????? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dda1
science forum Guru
Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 762
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 3:09 pm Post subject:
Pancho Valev - DAILY s**t EATER.
|
|
|
Pentcho Valev wrote:
<daily cretinism snipped>
Pancho, you are getting used to your daily dose of s**t. You are
becoming a s**t eating addict. Wait, you have been this way for many
years. Now , your "brown matter"" is really brown.
Disgusting nematode! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Len Gaasenbeek
science forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 155
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 11:18 pm Post subject:
Re: Pancho Valev - DAILY s**t EATER.
|
|
|
"dda1" <rangeravenger@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1153321755.391908.219520@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: |
Pentcho Valev wrote:
daily cretinism snipped
Pancho, you are getting used to your daily dose of s**t. You are
becoming a s**t eating addict. Wait, you have been this way for many
years. Now , your "brown matter"" is really brown.
Disgusting nematode!
............................................................... |
To 'dda1'
"In the Country of the Blind the One-eyed Man gets crucified."
J. L. Gaasenbeek.
"The wish to hurt, the momentary intoxication with pain, is the loophole
through which the pervert climbs into the minds of ordinary men."
Jacob Bronowski (1908-1974) British scientist and writer.
The Face of Violence, Ch. 5.
Len Gaasenbeek.
..................................................................... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dda1
science forum Guru
Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 762
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 11:43 pm Post subject:
Len Gaasenbeek - DAILY s**t EATER.
|
|
|
Len Gaasenbeek wrote:
<snipped, too idiotic>
Len Gaasenbeek, toady to pancho Valdez, comapnion in s**t eating on
relativity's account. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bill Hobba
science forum Guru
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 2138
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 1:18 am Post subject:
Re: REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM
|
|
|
"Pentcho Valev" <pvalev@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1153289825.716584.112720@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: | Popper's idea that theories should be tested only through experimental
verification of final results is misleading.
|
That was not Poppers idea.
Bill
| Quote: | A theory could start with
a false premise (e.g. "Entropy is a state function" or "The speed of
light is independent of the speed of the light source"), then devastate
any rationality in science but at some stage abandon for a while the
false premise and appropriate conclusions deduced from true premises.
Then logical verification of the deductive chains inside the theory is
much more important and in the process the crucial sanitary procedure
should be reductio ad absurdum - something forgotten in the era of
Postscientism. See Problem 7 ("Seeing behind the stick"), p. 47
(solution on p. 54), in
http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~phys16/Textbook/ch10.pdf
Imagine that the mark seen "behind the stick" possesses a pawl which,
released by the back end of the stick, erects so that the stick remains
trapped between the pawl and the wall. If the person who tests the
theory can see the mark, he/she can also see the erection of the pawl
and then the trapped stick as well. How long is the trapped stick? We
have reductio ad absurdum - there are two incompatible answers. In a
normal science the theory should be rejected.
Pentcho Valev
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Google
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Forum index
»
Science and Technology
»
Physics
»
Relativity
