When you introduce a falsehood in physical science you cannot remove the respective truth from your theory. Rather, explicit falsehood and implicit truth form a powerful couple able to produce virtually any result you need. The following quotation is based on formal logic and is an exaggeration with respect to physical theories; nevertheless it is quite instructive:

W. H. Newton-Smith, The Rationality of Science, Routledge, London, 1981, p. 229: “A theory ought to be internally consistent. The grounds for including this factor are a priori. For given a realist construal of theories, our concern is with verisimilitude, and if a theory is inconsistent it will contain every sentence of the language, as the following simple argument shows. Let ‘q’ be an arbitrary sentence of the language and suppose that the theory is inconsistent. This means that we can derive the sentence ‘p and not-p’. From this ‘p’ follows. And from ‘p’ it follows that ‘p or q’ (if ‘p’ is true then ‘p or q’ will be true no matter whether ‘q’ is true or not). Equally, it follows from ‘p and not-p’ that ‘not-p’. But ‘not-p’ together with ‘p or q’ entails ‘q’. Thus once we admit an inconsistency into our theory we have to admit everything. And no theory of verisimilitude would be acceptable that did not give the lowest degree of verisimilitude to a theory which contained each sentence of the theory’s language and its negation.”

As soon as you introduce the magic contradictory couple rationality starts disappearing and you do not need valid arguments anymore. Invalid arguments increase the power of your theory additionally: whether “Reversible heat engines working between the same two temperatures have the same efficiency” does or does not really follow from “Heat never flows spontaneously from cold to hot” is a question brothers scientists would never ask.

The falsehood enables you to demonstrate miracles and become a divinity; the respective truth enables you to predict verifiable results. Einstein’s false principle of constancy of the speed of light produces miracles such as time dilation, length contraction, Minkowski’s space-time, time travel etc. Einstein’s (rather, Newton’s) true principle of variability of the speed of light gives correct predictions such as the gravitational redshift factor.

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

I had to chime in on this post. :)

IMNSHO, logic is a tool for consistency checking. More broadly, mathematics is an enumeration of all self-consistent structures. If nature is self-consistent (e.g., events either happen or don’t happen, but not both), then nature has to be isomorphic to a mathematical system. In that case, the scientific method is the only way to study nature.

We create theories about the logical structure of nature and then seek to validate or falsify those theories empirically. Similarly, we create theories about the meaning of language propositions in each context in which they are used. We merely require that the uncertainty in our theories of physics and language be reducible to some small enough level to achieve a given task, e.g., to build a airplane, teach a concept, or cook from a recipe.

Thus, to give up on science one must sacrifice either logic or the consistency of nature. Yet, if you give these things up, you cannot know anything (at least not anything expressable as a logical proposition) nor make any predictions.

Let me put it another way. Without logic, “France is in Europe” and “France is not in Europe” could not be shown to be inconsistent. Thus, without logic, we could trust both with equal confidence. Without logic, there is no knowledge.

Finally, Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem does not say that certain mathematical systems are inconsistent, but rather that they are incomplete if consistent. That is, there are truths in those systems that cannot be proven in a finite number of steps. For example, the Goldbach Conjecture (every even integer greater than 2 can be written as the sum of two primes) has never been proven, but has been true in all tested cases. The Conjecture may be an example of a proposition that cannot be proven, but which is true nonetheless. I really don’t see this as a problem for either logic or mathematics.

The axioms of logic simply reflect its consistency. If the universe is not consistent, then we can’t know anything about it anyway.

Q: If it is dark outside, and you get to your front door, and find you don’t have your keys, where do you search?

A: Under the street light. It is the only place you will possible find your keys in the dark.

Kristen

Semantic, I really enjoyed the way you have opened yourself up to truths and logic and philosophy.
Keep searching and with God’s help you will learn the truth!

And annonymous, I disagree with you on organized religion (to a certain point). Yes, organized religion is ‘supposed’ to take the money from the coffers to help those in need, but is that the case? I have seen organized religion in particular sects and found it to be more hungry for implements other than the welfare of the human race.
But as I have said prior, not all organized religion, just those who have become much like the church of Ephesus (left their first love), Pergamos (worship idols and their children have learned and commit fornication) Thyatira (ditto Pergamos), Sardis (forgotten), Laodiceans (sit on the fence).
Rev 2:1-29, Rev 3:1-22

Indeed we have original sin, you don’t have to teach a two year old to grab their own toy and say mine, you have to teach them to share.

Organized religion takes care of the poor, the needy, the Aids victims etc.. all over the world because we care about human life. That is what the tithes and offerings are for.

While society needs scientists and the curious, look at what has happenned to our schools since we added Darwin and took out prayer and the ten commandments. I am in high school ministry and the kids are in a war zone every day at school under pressure of the worst kinds.

Organized religion brings them a family of people who love them and accept them exactly as they are not perfect just people.

have a good weekend,
prero.