Russian Name Worshipper mystics and Cantor's set theory
in [Math]
|
Prev: PRIVATE NET TO EXPAND WEB SPACE: 'mmm.web(TM)' seeks to replace.com
Next: Solutions manual to Engineering Mechanics Statics 12th edition by Russell C. Hibbeler
From: Patok on 23 Sep 2009 05:30 Bappa wrote: > On Sep 21, 4:42 pm, Patok <crazy.div.pa...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> Marko Amnell wrote: >>> On Sep 20, 12:50 pm, Bappa <adda1...(a)bigpond.com> wrote: >>>> On Sep 18, 3:42 am, Marko Amnell <marko.amn...(a)kolumbus.fi> wrote: >>>>> There is an interesting new book out about the >>>>> history of Cantor's set theory. It seems to >>>>> me that the book lends support to Feyerabend's >>>>> philosophy of science in _Against Method_. >>>>> Science can progress through *any* method, >>>> Sorry, Marko, this is dead wrong. The only valid *method* in science >>>> is the *experimental* method - meaning, repeatability of results under >>>> controlled and same conditions. The rest is analysis and discussion. >>> I was referring to Paul Feyerabend. He was engaged in an argument >>> with philosophers of science such as Karl Popper over the question >>> of whether there is one single correct Scientific Method. The argument >>> is not over the necessity of experiments in science, but other issues. >>> Here is one summary of Feyerabend's arguments: >> Marko, I admire your patience and level-headedness in dealing with >> certified wooden philosophers. >> (A "wooden phlosopher" is a term used in some Eastern European >> languages to describe pretend-intelligents --educated cretins, in other >> words-- like this Arindam Banerjee). > > This one sounds like an Einsteinian! A fit candidate for the Usenet > Rogues' Gallery of Arindam haters - we can squeeze him in, there is > still room! :) :) Hater?! I don't hate you, I'm /horrified/! "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. So is a lot." -- You'd be crazy to e-mail me with the crazy. But leave the div alone.
From: Arindam Banerjee on 23 Sep 2009 07:01 "Patok" <crazy.div.patok(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:h9cpr5$9ho$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > Bappa wrote: >> On Sep 21, 4:42 pm, Patok <crazy.div.pa...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> Marko Amnell wrote: >>>> On Sep 20, 12:50 pm, Bappa <adda1...(a)bigpond.com> wrote: >>>>> On Sep 18, 3:42 am, Marko Amnell <marko.amn...(a)kolumbus.fi> wrote: >>>>>> There is an interesting new book out about the >>>>>> history of Cantor's set theory. It seems to >>>>>> me that the book lends support to Feyerabend's >>>>>> philosophy of science in _Against Method_. >>>>>> Science can progress through *any* method, >>>>> Sorry, Marko, this is dead wrong. The only valid *method* in science >>>>> is the *experimental* method - meaning, repeatability of results under >>>>> controlled and same conditions. The rest is analysis and discussion. >>>> I was referring to Paul Feyerabend. He was engaged in an argument >>>> with philosophers of science such as Karl Popper over the question >>>> of whether there is one single correct Scientific Method. The argument >>>> is not over the necessity of experiments in science, but other issues. >>>> Here is one summary of Feyerabend's arguments: >>> Marko, I admire your patience and level-headedness in dealing with >>> certified wooden philosophers. >>> (A "wooden phlosopher" is a term used in some Eastern European >>> languages to describe pretend-intelligents --educated cretins, in other >>> words-- like this Arindam Banerjee). >> >> This one sounds like an Einsteinian! A fit candidate for the Usenet >> Rogues' Gallery of Arindam haters - we can squeeze him in, there is >> still room! :) :) > > Hater?! I don't hate you, I'm /horrified/! Oh dear, you *are* a little girl! A nice thing to be, in this age of LittleGirlism. Not that you have sugar and spice, and everything nice - just some shrieks. > "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. So is a lot." Hmm, now you are talking. Lots of bad knowledge built upon "wise" bungles is disastrous indeed, so the universities and labs must be deloused of Einsteinians. > > -- > You'd be crazy to e-mail me with the crazy. But leave the div alone.
From: Arindam Banerjee on 23 Sep 2009 07:09 "Michael" <marty.musatov(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:86e8ac9d-af66-42c2-8e30-87d92ed5fc1c(a)m3g2000pri.googlegroups.com... On Sep 22, 3:58 am, Bappa <adda1...(a)bigpond.com> wrote: > On Sep 21, 11:47 pm, Bappa <adda1...(a)bigpond.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Sep 20, 11:03 pm, Marko Amnell <marko.amn...(a)kolumbus.fi> wrote: > > > > On Sep 20, 12:50 pm, Bappa <adda1...(a)bigpond.com> wrote: > > > > > On Sep 18, 3:42 am, Marko Amnell <marko.amn...(a)kolumbus.fi> wrote: > > > > > > There is an interesting new book out about the > > > > > history of Cantor's set theory. It seems to > > > > > me that the book lends support to Feyerabend's > > > > > philosophy of science in _Against Method_. > > > > > Science can progress through *any* method, > > > > > Sorry, Marko, this is dead wrong. The only valid *method* in science > > > > is the *experimental* method - meaning, repeatability of results > > > > under > > > > controlled and same conditions. The rest is analysis and discussion. > > > > I was referring to Paul Feyerabend. He was engaged in an argument > > > with philosophers of science such as Karl Popper > > > If one cannot be a scientist, one can be a philosopher of science, > > evidently! Heh-heh. > > > > over the question > > > of whether there is one single correct Scientific Method. The argument > > > is not over the necessity of experiments in science, but other issues. > > > Here is one summary of Feyerabend's arguments: > > > Thanks for posting this. I will go through it. > > > > Science is an essentially anarchistic enterprise: theoretical > > > anarchism is more humanitarian and more likely to encourage progress > > > than its law-and-order alternatives. > > > The scientist can be anarchic, if he is independent and not under some > > institution. Science is not anarchic. It follows extremely well-laid > > and well-defined patterns and principles. The anarchy of the > > scientist lies in his revolt against a corrupting establishment, that > > corrupts science. Like, a person like me, who has debunked Einstein's > > wrong theories, is anarchic. But I have the greatest regard for the > > scientific method - which is EXPERIMENT. Beyond the experiment, there > > is the analysis. Wrong analysis, repetition of bungles and blunders, > > lead to disaster even when the experiment is correctly done. Check > > out > > >www.users.bigpond.com/adda1234/MMInt.htm as an example, that shows > > how a correctly done experiment led to very bad and wrong and in fact > > disastrous results as a result of wrong analysis. > > > > This is shown both by an examination of historical episodes and by an > > > abstract analysis of the relation between idea and action. The only > > > principle that does not inhibit progress is: anything goes. > > > No, that is wrong. Immoral and cowardly approaches do not help in the > > least. In the long run, at least. > > > > For example, we may use hypotheses that contradict well-confirmed > > > theories and/or well-established experimental results. We may advance > > > science by proceeding counter-inductively. > > > Again, wrong. Einstein's theories were and are wrong. They were > > wrong because they were based upon a blunder, in analysing the results > > of the MM interferometry experiment. They were "proved" by the atom > > bomb apparently, but my new formula relating mass and energy shows how > > wrong they all were. Now, my formula will be proved right only when I > > make a model of an Internal Force Engine. That will be some > > experiment! Till then, my work is theoretical, and of no practical > > value - yet. > > > > The consistency condition which demands that new hypotheses agree with > > > accepted theories is unreasonable because it preserves the older > > > theory, and not the better theory. Hypotheses contradicting well- > > > confirmed theories give us evidence that cannot be obtained in any > > > other way. Proliferation of theories is beneficial for science, while > > > uniformity impairs its critical power. Uniformity also endangers the > > > free development of the individual. > > > So far so good. Yes there can be many theories, but only proper > > experiment can decide which one is the most correct at any given > > time. Till then, we live in the world of speculation. > > > > There is no idea, however ancient and absurd, that is not capable of > > > improving our knowledge. > > > Increasing knowledge is not the same as improving knowledge. > > > The whole history of thought is absorbed into > > > > science and is used for improving every single theory. Nor is > > > political interference rejected. It may be needed to overcome the > > > chauvinism of science that resists alternatives to the status quo. > > > No theory ever agrees with all the facts in its domain, > > I don't see any facts going against the theories of gravitation, > electromagnetics, atomic structure, etc. which form the core of hard > science. I see lots of facts going against the theories of relativity > and quantum and entropy. > > yet it is not > > > > always the theory that is to blame. Facts are constituted by older > > > ideologies, and a clash between facts and theories may be proof of > > > progress. > > No, it is a proof of regress. It is proof that bad theories are > winning out over good theories. It is proof that the establishment is > corrupt and forcing people to live in a world of lies. > > It is also a first step in our attempts to find the > > > > principles implicit in familiar observational notions. > > > As an example of such an attempt I examine the tower argument which > > > the Aristotelians used to refute the motion of the earth. > > Scratch any Einsteinian deep enough, and you will find an > Aristotelian. Special relativity can be correct if and only if the > Earth is standing still, so much I myself have proved beyond doubt. I > suspect that the success of Einstein has some deep (and disgustingly > wrong) theological basis. > > The argument > > > > involves natural interpretations - ideas so closely connected with > > > observations that it needs a special effort to realise their existence > > > and to determine their content. Galileo identifies the natural > > > interpretations which are inconsistent with Copernicus and replaces > > > them by others. > > Huh? Galileo found out with his telescope that Jupiter had moons. So > if Jupiter's moons could go around Jupiter, the Earth could go around > the Sun. It would then move, that is. Which was what Copernicus was > saying, as opposed to the standard Aristotelian theory that the Sun > and everything else was going around the Earth. > > The Church did not want to hear about the Earth's mobility, so they > made Galileo shut up. > > Again, this was what I learnt in my First Year in Engineering from the > Humanities Dept. We read the play "Galileo" by Brecht. > > > > The new natural interpretations constitute a new and highly abstract > > > observation language. They are introduced and concealed so that one > > > falls to notice the change that has taken place (method of anamnesis). > > > They contain the idea of the relativity of all motion and the law of > > > circular inertia. > > Here we go again, with wrong theories like relativity and circular > inertia trying to out the right ones like gravity. Wrong observations > and wrong deductions are crucial for the success of wrong theories. > The MM interferometry experiment, with its wrong analysis, done many > times by many people, is the biggest proof of this. > > > > Initial difficulties caused by the change are defused by ad hoc > > > hypotheses, which thus turn out occasionally to have a positive > > > function; they give new theories a breathing space, and they indicate > > > the direction of future research. > > So long as folks still have wits and guts. What with idiot-box TV, > novels and permissiveness, ease of every kind, junk food and > establishmentarianism meaning safe and comfortable pensions after > retirement for all the slimy sucking-up PhuDs, the very concept of > anarchic research has long ceased to exist anywhere on the planet. > Except, maybe, in Kazakhstan, where men are ruled by men and not by > little girls. Because they have the best potassium, as we know, from > Borat. > > > > > > > > In addition to natural interpretations, Galileo also changes > > > sensations that seem to endanger Copernicus. He admits that there are > > > such sensations, he praises Copernicus for having disregarded them, he > > > claims to have removed them with the help of the telescope. However, > > > he offers no theoretical reasons why the telescope should be expected > > > to give a true picture of the sky. > > > Nor does the initial experience with the telescope provide such > > > reasons. The first telescopic observations of the sky are indistinct, > > > indeterminate, contradictory and in conflict with what everyone can > > > see with his unaided eyes. And, the only theory that could have helped > > > to separate telescopic illusions from veridical phenomena was refuted > > > by simple tests. > > > On the other hand, there are some telescopic phenomena which are > > > plainly Copernican. Galileo introduces these phenomena as independent > > > evidence for Copernicus while the situation is rather that one refuted > > > view - Copernicanism - has a certain similarity with phenomena > > > emerging from another refuted view - the idea that telescopic > > > phenomena are faithful images of the sky. Galileo prevails because of > > > his style and his clever techniques of persuasion, because he writes > > > in Italian rather than in Latin, and because he appeals to people who > > > are temperamentally opposed to the old ideas and the standards of > > > learning connected with them. > > Galileo prevailed far more over Aristotle (his orbiting moons > shattered Aristotle's crystal spheres, remember) than Copernicus till > Einstein came up with his relativistic bs; given the modern success of > the Einsteinians (aka Aristotleians) it looks like his success has had > a hopefully temporary break. I don't see how Galileo and Copernicus > were at odds. Galileo's telescope showed the moons, and later on it > was found that the movement of heavenly bodies made much more sense if > the Copernican model was followed. > > > > Such 'irrational' methods of support are needed because of the 'uneven > > > development' (Marx, Lenin) of different parts of science. > > > Copernicanism and other essential ingredients of modern science > > > survived only because reason was frequently overruled in their past. > > Reason was over-ruled only by by bigots, like those who burnt Bruno > for daring to say that the universe was infinite. Science has never > gained from bigotry. > > > > > > > > Galileo's method works in other fields as well. For example, it can be > > > used to eliminate the existing arguments against materialism, and to > > > put an end to the philosophical mind/body problem (the corresponding > > > scientific problems remain untouched, however). > > > The results obtained so far suggest abolishing the distinction between > > > a context of discovery and a context of justification and disregarding > > > the related distinction between observational terms and theoretical > > > terms. Neither distinction plays a role in scientific practice. > > > Attempts to enforce them would have disastrous consequences. > > > Finally, the discussion in Chapters 6-13 shows that Popper's version > > > of Mill's pluralism is not in agreement with scientific practice and > > > would destroy science as we know it. Given science, reason cannot be > > > universal and unreason cannot be excluded. This feature of science > > > calls for an anarchistic epistemology. The realisation that science is > > > not sacrosanct, and that the debate between science and myth has > > > ceased without having been won by either side, further strengthens the > > > case for anarchism. > > > Even the ingenious attempt of Lakatos to construct a methodology that > > > (a) does not issue orders and yet (b) puts restrictions upon our > > > knowledge-increasing activities, does not escape this conclusion. For > > > Lakatos' philosophy appears liberal only because it is an anarchism in > > > disguise. And his standards which are abstracted from modern science > > > cannot be regarded as neutral arbiters in the issue between modern > > > science and Aristotelian science, myth, magic, religion, etc. > > > Moreover, these standards, which involve a comparison of content > > > classes, are not always applicable. The content classes of certain > > > theories are incomparable in the sense that none of the usual logical > > > relations (inclusion, exclusion, overlap) can be said to hold between > > > them. This occurs when we compare myths with science. It also occurs > > > in the most advanced, most general and therefore most mythological > > > parts of science itself. > > There is real science, upon which engineering is based. Then there is > wrong science, upon which academics thrive, under the patronage of the > politicians. Wrong science is far more dishonest than voodoo. > > > > Thus science is much closer to myth than a scientific philosophy is > > > prepared to admit. > > Myth is wonderful, for it deals with the deepest ideas of existence. > The scientist can derive inspiration from myth, especially in a > cynical atheistic world. However, science has nothing to do with > myth. > > It is one of the many forms of thought that have > > > > been developed by man, and not necessarily the best. It is > > > conspicuous, noisy, and impudent, but it is inherently superior only > > > for those who have already decided in favour of a certain ideology, or > > > who have accepted it without having ever examined its advantages and > > > its limits. And as the accepting and rejecting of ideologies should be > > > left to the individual it follows that the separation of state and > > > church must be supplemented by the separation of state and science, > > > that most recent, most aggressive, and most dogmatic religious > > > institution. Such a separation may be our only chance to achieve a > > > humanity we are capable of, but have never fully realised. > > It is too bad, that the atheists have made out science to be their > religion. When it is just a straightforward, honest, meticulous set > of methods (experiment) and fair and balanced observation, analysis, > discussion leading to the formation of correct theories for correct > predictions. It is a branch on the great tree of Art... > > > > > > > >http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/ge/feyerab... > > > > > This is what I was taught in my engineering institute (First Year) > > > > by > > > > the profs. in the Humanities Dept. IIT Kharagur was the only IIT > > > > where there was a firmly established and motivated Humanities > > > > department. > > > > > > including the paradoxical fact that the progress > > > > > of mathematics was aided by the mysticism > > > > > of Russian mathematicians who accepted > > > > > Cantor's set theory because it fit their > > > > > mystical beliefs. > > > > > Now what has maths to do with science? The Queen of Arts is > > > > Mathematics, and Science pays the most humble homage to Her. > > > > Many people would include mathematics as part of science. > > > They used to give B.A. in maths, in the great days of maths. Science > > serves maths, not the other way around, in any honest establishment. > > Especially when by maths they mean statistics. > > > > There is an element of mathematics that is similar to the > > > arts but I would not call mathematics an art. > > > I would. Mathematics is the Queen of Arts, and Philosophy is the > > King. > > > Aesthetic > > > > considerations play a role in mathematics, but they also > > > play a role in theoretical physics. > > > Arts is not just about aesthetics. Arts is about art - about subtle > > trickery - the means with which we differentiate ourselves from the > > denizens of the wild. > > > > There are no experiments > > > in mathematics but the use of logical deduction sets it > > > apart from the arts. The fundamental concepts of mathematics > > > have a basis in experience, but the concepts have been > > > abstracted. > > > I think we are on different wavelengths. I depend upon maths for my > > living. And the set theory you are talking about, is a daily > > phenomenon for me these days, when I write SQL code. Maths is > > abstract for dilettantes and those in academia maybe, but for an > > engineer/computer scientist/mathematical modeller/etc. like myself, it > > is very very concrete indeed. > > > It is late, so I have not replied in greater detail. May do that > > later. Thanks a lot for your wonderful post, as illuminating as ever. > > > Cheers, and with regards, > > > Arindam Banerjee- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Guts faith and goodness, but none of it matters without goodness. -- Martin Musatov Truth above goodness: The beauty that is not based upon goodness is not beautiful; the good that is not based upon truth is not good. Satyam Shivam Sundaram - Truth Goodness Beauty - strictly in that order. And by Truth, we mean the whole truth, the whole balanced truth, and nothing but the truth. Cheers, Arindam Banerjee.
From: harmony on 23 Sep 2009 18:14 "Arindam Banerjee" <adda1234(a)bigpond.com> wrote in message news:Flnum.42540$ze1.33555(a)news-server.bigpond.net.au... > > "Michael" <marty.musatov(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > news:86e8ac9d-af66-42c2-8e30-87d92ed5fc1c(a)m3g2000pri.googlegroups.com... > On Sep 22, 3:58 am, Bappa <adda1...(a)bigpond.com> wrote: >> On Sep 21, 11:47 pm, Bappa <adda1...(a)bigpond.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> > On Sep 20, 11:03 pm, Marko Amnell <marko.amn...(a)kolumbus.fi> wrote: >> >> > > On Sep 20, 12:50 pm, Bappa <adda1...(a)bigpond.com> wrote: >> >> > > > On Sep 18, 3:42 am, Marko Amnell <marko.amn...(a)kolumbus.fi> wrote: >> >> > > > > There is an interesting new book out about the >> > > > > history of Cantor's set theory. It seems to >> > > > > me that the book lends support to Feyerabend's >> > > > > philosophy of science in _Against Method_. >> > > > > Science can progress through *any* method, >> >> > > > Sorry, Marko, this is dead wrong. The only valid *method* in >> > > > science >> > > > is the *experimental* method - meaning, repeatability of results >> > > > under >> > > > controlled and same conditions. The rest is analysis and >> > > > discussion. >> >> > > I was referring to Paul Feyerabend. He was engaged in an argument >> > > with philosophers of science such as Karl Popper >> >> > If one cannot be a scientist, one can be a philosopher of science, >> > evidently! Heh-heh. >> >> > > over the question >> > > of whether there is one single correct Scientific Method. The >> > > argument >> > > is not over the necessity of experiments in science, but other >> > > issues. >> > > Here is one summary of Feyerabend's arguments: >> >> > Thanks for posting this. I will go through it. >> >> > > Science is an essentially anarchistic enterprise: theoretical >> > > anarchism is more humanitarian and more likely to encourage progress >> > > than its law-and-order alternatives. >> >> > The scientist can be anarchic, if he is independent and not under some >> > institution. Science is not anarchic. It follows extremely well-laid >> > and well-defined patterns and principles. The anarchy of the >> > scientist lies in his revolt against a corrupting establishment, that >> > corrupts science. Like, a person like me, who has debunked Einstein's >> > wrong theories, is anarchic. But I have the greatest regard for the >> > scientific method - which is EXPERIMENT. Beyond the experiment, there >> > is the analysis. Wrong analysis, repetition of bungles and blunders, >> > lead to disaster even when the experiment is correctly done. Check >> > out >> >> >www.users.bigpond.com/adda1234/MMInt.htm as an example, that shows >> > how a correctly done experiment led to very bad and wrong and in fact >> > disastrous results as a result of wrong analysis. >> >> > > This is shown both by an examination of historical episodes and by an >> > > abstract analysis of the relation between idea and action. The only >> > > principle that does not inhibit progress is: anything goes. >> >> > No, that is wrong. Immoral and cowardly approaches do not help in the >> > least. In the long run, at least. >> >> > > For example, we may use hypotheses that contradict well-confirmed >> > > theories and/or well-established experimental results. We may advance >> > > science by proceeding counter-inductively. >> >> > Again, wrong. Einstein's theories were and are wrong. They were >> > wrong because they were based upon a blunder, in analysing the results >> > of the MM interferometry experiment. They were "proved" by the atom >> > bomb apparently, but my new formula relating mass and energy shows how >> > wrong they all were. Now, my formula will be proved right only when I >> > make a model of an Internal Force Engine. That will be some >> > experiment! Till then, my work is theoretical, and of no practical >> > value - yet. >> >> > > The consistency condition which demands that new hypotheses agree >> > > with >> > > accepted theories is unreasonable because it preserves the older >> > > theory, and not the better theory. Hypotheses contradicting well- >> > > confirmed theories give us evidence that cannot be obtained in any >> > > other way. Proliferation of theories is beneficial for science, while >> > > uniformity impairs its critical power. Uniformity also endangers the >> > > free development of the individual. >> >> > So far so good. Yes there can be many theories, but only proper >> > experiment can decide which one is the most correct at any given >> > time. Till then, we live in the world of speculation. >> >> > > There is no idea, however ancient and absurd, that is not capable of >> > > improving our knowledge. >> >> > Increasing knowledge is not the same as improving knowledge. >> >> > The whole history of thought is absorbed into >> >> > > science and is used for improving every single theory. Nor is >> > > political interference rejected. It may be needed to overcome the >> > > chauvinism of science that resists alternatives to the status quo. >> > > No theory ever agrees with all the facts in its domain, >> >> I don't see any facts going against the theories of gravitation, >> electromagnetics, atomic structure, etc. which form the core of hard >> science. I see lots of facts going against the theories of relativity >> and quantum and entropy. >> >> yet it is not >> >> > > always the theory that is to blame. Facts are constituted by older >> > > ideologies, and a clash between facts and theories may be proof of >> > > progress. >> >> No, it is a proof of regress. It is proof that bad theories are >> winning out over good theories. It is proof that the establishment is >> corrupt and forcing people to live in a world of lies. >> >> It is also a first step in our attempts to find the >> >> > > principles implicit in familiar observational notions. >> > > As an example of such an attempt I examine the tower argument which >> > > the Aristotelians used to refute the motion of the earth. >> >> Scratch any Einsteinian deep enough, and you will find an >> Aristotelian. Special relativity can be correct if and only if the >> Earth is standing still, so much I myself have proved beyond doubt. I >> suspect that the success of Einstein has some deep (and disgustingly >> wrong) theological basis. >> >> The argument >> >> > > involves natural interpretations - ideas so closely connected with >> > > observations that it needs a special effort to realise their >> > > existence >> > > and to determine their content. Galileo identifies the natural >> > > interpretations which are inconsistent with Copernicus and replaces >> > > them by others. >> >> Huh? Galileo found out with his telescope that Jupiter had moons. So >> if Jupiter's moons could go around Jupiter, the Earth could go around >> the Sun. It would then move, that is. Which was what Copernicus was >> saying, as opposed to the standard Aristotelian theory that the Sun >> and everything else was going around the Earth. >> >> The Church did not want to hear about the Earth's mobility, so they >> made Galileo shut up. >> >> Again, this was what I learnt in my First Year in Engineering from the >> Humanities Dept. We read the play "Galileo" by Brecht. >> >> > > The new natural interpretations constitute a new and highly abstract >> > > observation language. They are introduced and concealed so that one >> > > falls to notice the change that has taken place (method of >> > > anamnesis). >> > > They contain the idea of the relativity of all motion and the law of >> > > circular inertia. >> >> Here we go again, with wrong theories like relativity and circular >> inertia trying to out the right ones like gravity. Wrong observations >> and wrong deductions are crucial for the success of wrong theories. >> The MM interferometry experiment, with its wrong analysis, done many >> times by many people, is the biggest proof of this. >> >> > > Initial difficulties caused by the change are defused by ad hoc >> > > hypotheses, which thus turn out occasionally to have a positive >> > > function; they give new theories a breathing space, and they indicate >> > > the direction of future research. >> >> So long as folks still have wits and guts. What with idiot-box TV, >> novels and permissiveness, ease of every kind, junk food and >> establishmentarianism meaning safe and comfortable pensions after >> retirement for all the slimy sucking-up PhuDs, the very concept of >> anarchic research has long ceased to exist anywhere on the planet. >> Except, maybe, in Kazakhstan, where men are ruled by men and not by >> little girls. Because they have the best potassium, as we know, from >> Borat. >> >> >> >> >> >> > > In addition to natural interpretations, Galileo also changes >> > > sensations that seem to endanger Copernicus. He admits that there are >> > > such sensations, he praises Copernicus for having disregarded them, >> > > he >> > > claims to have removed them with the help of the telescope. However, >> > > he offers no theoretical reasons why the telescope should be expected >> > > to give a true picture of the sky. >> > > Nor does the initial experience with the telescope provide such >> > > reasons. The first telescopic observations of the sky are indistinct, >> > > indeterminate, contradictory and in conflict with what everyone can >> > > see with his unaided eyes. And, the only theory that could have >> > > helped >> > > to separate telescopic illusions from veridical phenomena was refuted >> > > by simple tests. >> > > On the other hand, there are some telescopic phenomena which are >> > > plainly Copernican. Galileo introduces these phenomena as independent >> > > evidence for Copernicus while the situation is rather that one >> > > refuted >> > > view - Copernicanism - has a certain similarity with phenomena >> > > emerging from another refuted view - the idea that telescopic >> > > phenomena are faithful images of the sky. Galileo prevails because of >> > > his style and his clever techniques of persuasion, because he writes >> > > in Italian rather than in Latin, and because he appeals to people who >> > > are temperamentally opposed to the old ideas and the standards of >> > > learning connected with them. >> >> Galileo prevailed far more over Aristotle (his orbiting moons >> shattered Aristotle's crystal spheres, remember) than Copernicus till >> Einstein came up with his relativistic bs; given the modern success of >> the Einsteinians (aka Aristotleians) it looks like his success has had >> a hopefully temporary break. I don't see how Galileo and Copernicus >> were at odds. Galileo's telescope showed the moons, and later on it >> was found that the movement of heavenly bodies made much more sense if >> the Copernican model was followed. >> >> > > Such 'irrational' methods of support are needed because of the >> > > 'uneven >> > > development' (Marx, Lenin) of different parts of science. >> > > Copernicanism and other essential ingredients of modern science >> > > survived only because reason was frequently overruled in their past. >> >> Reason was over-ruled only by by bigots, like those who burnt Bruno >> for daring to say that the universe was infinite. Science has never >> gained from bigotry. >> >> >> >> >> >> > > Galileo's method works in other fields as well. For example, it can >> > > be >> > > used to eliminate the existing arguments against materialism, and to >> > > put an end to the philosophical mind/body problem (the corresponding >> > > scientific problems remain untouched, however). >> > > The results obtained so far suggest abolishing the distinction >> > > between >> > > a context of discovery and a context of justification and >> > > disregarding >> > > the related distinction between observational terms and theoretical >> > > terms. Neither distinction plays a role in scientific practice. >> > > Attempts to enforce them would have disastrous consequences. >> > > Finally, the discussion in Chapters 6-13 shows that Popper's version >> > > of Mill's pluralism is not in agreement with scientific practice and >> > > would destroy science as we know it. Given science, reason cannot be >> > > universal and unreason cannot be excluded. This feature of science >> > > calls for an anarchistic epistemology. The realisation that science >> > > is >> > > not sacrosanct, and that the debate between science and myth has >> > > ceased without having been won by either side, further strengthens >> > > the >> > > case for anarchism. >> > > Even the ingenious attempt of Lakatos to construct a methodology that >> > > (a) does not issue orders and yet (b) puts restrictions upon our >> > > knowledge-increasing activities, does not escape this conclusion. For >> > > Lakatos' philosophy appears liberal only because it is an anarchism >> > > in >> > > disguise. And his standards which are abstracted from modern science >> > > cannot be regarded as neutral arbiters in the issue between modern >> > > science and Aristotelian science, myth, magic, religion, etc. >> > > Moreover, these standards, which involve a comparison of content >> > > classes, are not always applicable. The content classes of certain >> > > theories are incomparable in the sense that none of the usual logical >> > > relations (inclusion, exclusion, overlap) can be said to hold between >> > > them. This occurs when we compare myths with science. It also occurs >> > > in the most advanced, most general and therefore most mythological >> > > parts of science itself. >> >> There is real science, upon which engineering is based. Then there is >> wrong science, upon which academics thrive, under the patronage of the >> politicians. Wrong science is far more dishonest than voodoo. >> >> > > Thus science is much closer to myth than a scientific philosophy is >> > > prepared to admit. >> >> Myth is wonderful, for it deals with the deepest ideas of existence. >> The scientist can derive inspiration from myth, especially in a >> cynical atheistic world. However, science has nothing to do with >> myth. >> >> It is one of the many forms of thought that have >> >> > > been developed by man, and not necessarily the best. It is >> > > conspicuous, noisy, and impudent, but it is inherently superior only >> > > for those who have already decided in favour of a certain ideology, >> > > or >> > > who have accepted it without having ever examined its advantages and >> > > its limits. And as the accepting and rejecting of ideologies should >> > > be >> > > left to the individual it follows that the separation of state and >> > > church must be supplemented by the separation of state and science, >> > > that most recent, most aggressive, and most dogmatic religious >> > > institution. Such a separation may be our only chance to achieve a >> > > humanity we are capable of, but have never fully realised. >> >> It is too bad, that the atheists have made out science to be their >> religion. When it is just a straightforward, honest, meticulous set >> of methods (experiment) and fair and balanced observation, analysis, >> discussion leading to the formation of correct theories for correct >> predictions. It is a branch on the great tree of Art... >> >> >> >> >> >> > >http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/ge/feyerab... >> >> > > > This is what I was taught in my engineering institute (First Year) >> > > > by >> > > > the profs. in the Humanities Dept. IIT Kharagur was the only IIT >> > > > where there was a firmly established and motivated Humanities >> > > > department. >> >> > > > > including the paradoxical fact that the progress >> > > > > of mathematics was aided by the mysticism >> > > > > of Russian mathematicians who accepted >> > > > > Cantor's set theory because it fit their >> > > > > mystical beliefs. >> >> > > > Now what has maths to do with science? The Queen of Arts is >> > > > Mathematics, and Science pays the most humble homage to Her. >> >> > > Many people would include mathematics as part of science. >> >> > They used to give B.A. in maths, in the great days of maths. Science >> > serves maths, not the other way around, in any honest establishment. >> > Especially when by maths they mean statistics. >> >> > > There is an element of mathematics that is similar to the >> > > arts but I would not call mathematics an art. >> >> > I would. Mathematics is the Queen of Arts, and Philosophy is the >> > King. >> >> > Aesthetic >> >> > > considerations play a role in mathematics, but they also >> > > play a role in theoretical physics. >> >> > Arts is not just about aesthetics. Arts is about art - about subtle >> > trickery - the means with which we differentiate ourselves from the >> > denizens of the wild. >> >> > > There are no experiments >> > > in mathematics but the use of logical deduction sets it >> > > apart from the arts. The fundamental concepts of mathematics >> > > have a basis in experience, but the concepts have been >> > > abstracted. >> >> > I think we are on different wavelengths. I depend upon maths for my >> > living. And the set theory you are talking about, is a daily >> > phenomenon for me these days, when I write SQL code. Maths is >> > abstract for dilettantes and those in academia maybe, but for an >> > engineer/computer scientist/mathematical modeller/etc. like myself, it >> > is very very concrete indeed. >> >> > It is late, so I have not replied in greater detail. May do that >> > later. Thanks a lot for your wonderful post, as illuminating as ever. >> >> > Cheers, and with regards, >> >> > Arindam Banerjee- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > Guts faith and goodness, but none of it matters without goodness. -- > Martin Musatov > > Truth above goodness: The beauty that is not based upon goodness is not > beautiful; the good that is not based upon truth is not good. > > Satyam Shivam Sundaram - Truth Goodness Beauty - strictly in that order. > And by Truth, we mean the whole truth, the whole balanced truth, and > nothing but the truth. > > Cheers, > Arindam Banerjee. > which reminds me of rajghat, the memorial to mahatma gandhi: satyam (he practised truth) shivam (he was always kind and good) sundaram (now modern designers think khadi is beautiful). what's the word for those who hate mahatma gandhi?
From: kunzmilan on 24 Sep 2009 07:57
On 17 záÅ, 19:42, Marko Amnell <marko.amn...(a)kolumbus.fi> wrote: > Alexandrov also figures prominently as one of > Luzin's accusers in the tense hearing before a tribunal of the Academy > of Sciences in 1936. At that trial he said, "I do not claim that > Suslin named A-sets in my honor, because I never heard anything of the > sort from him." Some 40 years later, that same Alexandrov wrote that > "[Suslin] emphasized that he was naming the A-sets in my honor, in > analogy with the B-sets [named for Borel]." Thus does memory play > tricks on us all! Or his memory failed in 1936. It was then dangereous to admit such honor from an accused. kunzmilan |