"Dr. Keith Taber" wrote:

> I've been a little disappointed that things have gone so quiet,
> especially as I've noticed some new colleagues have joined the list.
> I've been VERY busy this term, and had not wanted to force a dialogue
> for its own sake. (I suspect most people who join these lists would
> prefer a quiet list, than a high activity one with little substance.)

Let me suggest something. I think that there are serious problems with the
deductive approach in science. The process started in the middle of the 19th
century when
Clausius and Kelvin converted thermodynamics which had just emerged as a
deductive science into an INCONSISTENCY. The latter can be defined as a set of
propositions which cannot be true simultaneously under any circumstances, either
realistic or unrealistic. Since then, scientists' minds have been forced to get
used to inconsistent theories and now inconsistency is a NORM in deductive
science.
Of course the above is by no means a discovery - many people express similar
views. Yet I think that very few people know how to counteract inconsistency.
Since it has become a norm, one usually counteracts a particular inconsistency
by replacing it with some "better" inconsistency. I have also been in that
vicious circle for a long time but at least I am trying hard to get out. So I
have written a paper wich deals with the particular examples of thermodynamics
and
special relativity. It is called "Deduction and inconsistency" and I suspect
many people would be interested. I have attached the respective word file to
this
posting although this is not permitted perhaps. If it is not, I hope Keith would
be kind to remove the attachment or place the paper in the "files" section. I
would
also be happy to send it to anyone who is interested and is not afraid of word
files. Just let me know.

Pentcho Valev

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Note: the server automatically removes attachments. List members may wish to
contact Pentcho for a copy of his paper. KST