Re: Question: Philosophy of Science - is it Relevant?


"Pompous Git" jpsturm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:-

> Galileo asked us to consider what would happen if the two balls were
tied
> together as one by an iron rod. The smaller and lighter ball,
according to
> Aristotelian physics, would slow down the ascent of the larger,
heavier
> ball. Yet the combined weight, being greater than either ball alone,
meant
> that they would fall *faster* when tied together, as well as *slower*.
> Since
> a contradiction was (and remains) not allowed, the answer to the
problem
> was
> that differing weights necessarily fall at the same rate. Galileo had
> demonstrated that Aristotle had been wrong about falling weights.

JE:-
The power of the philosopher is their unique ability to _correctly_
identify contradictions which of course do not exist within nature (just
within the fumbling mind of humans). This can save science (and the
mostly public sector that supports it today) enormous amounts of time
and money.

The private sector values something called EFFICIENCY simply because
shareholders demand it. However this is not the case within the public
sector because nobody can sell their shares. Pursuing a contradiction
within empirically based science is just a waste. If a research
scientist cannot properly identify a contradiction then they may invest
the resources of themselves and others in just a wild goose chase, e.g.
the search for a perpetual motion machine. An example within gene
centric Neo Darwinism is Triver's "reciprocal altruism" which like all
Neo Darwinistic social evolution theory remains based on Hamilton's
false rationale. Reciprocal altruism only represents a contradiction
because a donation reciprocated is simply not a donation. Had Trivers
bothered to ask any competent philosopher they would have pointed this
out. Trivers twisted logic could only refer to mutualised exchange.
However, because he was a member of the Looney Left mutualised exchange
reeked of trade (which represents a _cognitive_ version of natural non
cognitive mutualised exchange commonly found within nature) which would
have been politically unacceptable. Of course if Popper's refutation
tool had been employed the non refutability of any contradiction would
have removed it from contention.


Regards,

John Edser
Independent Researcher

PO Box 266
Church Pt
NSW 2105
Australia

edser@xxxxxxxxxx




.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: looking for a predicate hierarchy
    ... I do not see why using two crisp ... ball is red = 0.7 vs. ... the membership function *is* a possibility ... contradiction), but purely technically, less inference paths you ...
    (comp.object)
  • Re: looking for a predicate hierarchy
    ... I do not see why using two crisp ... ball is red = 0.7 vs. ... the membership function *is* a possibility ... obvious that contradiction and uncertainty ...
    (comp.object)
  • Re: looking for a predicate hierarchy
    ... ball is red = 0.7 vs. ... Additivity ... contradictory inference (not to be mixed with inference from ... contradiction), but purely technically, less inference paths you ...
    (comp.object)
  • Re: IPT 2nd nite on TV.
    ... Where is section 3.10 in complete contradiction to section 4.14? ... the ball with your stick outside of the act of shooting the ball, ... desire to have cheating occur in the game. ... There is nothing ambiguous about section 4.14 of the BCA rule book. ...
    (rec.sport.billiard)
  • Re: compile+link Fujitsu Linux
    ... Robert wrote: ... I was told in school that Galileo stood on top of the Tower of Pisa, dropped a cannon ball ... Galileo never said they landed at the same time; he said the heavier ball lands first. ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)