http://www.wbabin.net/physics/valev.htm
http://dogma.free.fr/txt/PVInconsistance.htm
Learning by rote was still possible up until recently, stimulated by the
mythology surrounding such disciplines. Yet the excitement caused by any
mythology disappears sooner or later and then the collapse is unavoidable.
Philosophers of science usually take their heads out of the sand only to be
able to say "There are more important factors than this" and then quickly
stick the heads back in the sand again. They may be right but this
particular factor should also be dealt with. The procedure is simple.
Knowing that Clausius has deduced "All reversible machines working between
the same two temperatures have the same efficiency" from "Heat flows
spontaneously from hot to cold", we should simply ask: IS THE DEDUCTION
VALID? IF IT IS NOT, THEN WHAT?
If the deduction is not valid, the whole classical thermodynamics will have
to be abandoned and replaced with some consistent thermodynamics. The
alternative is to continue to force students to learn an inconsistent
science by rote.
Pentcho Valev
Messages to the list are archived at http://listserv.liv.ac.uk/archives/philos-l.html.
Prolonged discussions should be moved to chora: enrol via
http://listserv.liv.ac.uk/archives/chora.html.
Other philosophical resources on the Web can be found at http://www.liv.ac.uk/pal.
Steven French
Professor of Philosophy of Science
Division of History and Philosophy of Science
School of Philosophy
University of Leeds
Leeds LS2 9JT
Tel: 0113 3433279
Fax: 0113 343 3265
Email: s.r.d....@leeds.ac.uk
http://www.philosophy.leeds.ac.uk/Staff/SF/Index.htm
Editor-in-Chief, Metascience
http://www.kluweronline.com/issn/0815-0796/current
"Reality is that which when you stop believing in it does not go away."
(Philip K, Dick)
Thermodynamics is an especially poorly understood theory in its philosophical aspects even at the level of definitions (which physicists tend to be poor at), but I don't think that quantum theory is any better than "relativity", and I almost totally reject the view that students' lack of interest in learning has anything to do with anomalies or paradoxes in theories. Students aren't interested in learning mostly, in my opinion, because of parental lack of discipline concerning learning and because of Materialism: Greed-Materialism, Power-Materialism, Sensation-Materialism, Nepotism-Friendship-Materialism ("friendship above Ethics") and Lack-of-Discrimination-Materialism (between the Individual and the Plurality, Right and Wrong, Offense and Peace and Self-Defense). Speaking of these matters, why doesn't Pentcho Valev post to CHORA?
I should add that a rather large proportion of students believe that the only purpose of learning is to obtain employment, which is also believed by a rather large proportion of their parents, in my opinion (though I have taught long enough to form an "educated guess").
Osher Doctorow
1. If B follows from A and A is useful for jugglers, then A follows from B.
2. If B follows from A and B is useful for jugglers but A is obviously false, then
jugglers have the right to find some C such that B follows from C. If the falsehood of A
is not so obvious, C is not necessary and B may continue to follow from A.
3. If B follows from A and A is obviously false but B has become fashionable, the
falsehood of A is immaterial and should be ignored.
Needless to say, all special logical rules lead to the glorification and even deification
of jugglers. The problem is that they are fatal for science education.
Pentcho Valev