Lettre ouverte à: Karine Chemla, Jean Eisenstaedt, Thibault Damour,
Alain Aspect, Roger Balian, Claude Cohen-Tannoudji, Olivier Darrigol,
Michel Paty, Angèle Kremer-Marietti, Gilles Cohen-Tannoudji, Etienne
Klein, Michel Bitbol

--- On Fri, 5/23/08, Eisenstaedt Jean <Jean.Eisenstaedt***obspm.fr>
wrote:

> From: Eisenstaedt Jean <Jean.Eisenstaedt***obspm.fr>
> Subject: Re: PARADOXES OU ABSURDITES DE LA RELATIVITE?
> To: "Pentcho Valev" <pvalev***yahoo.com>
> Date: Friday, May 23, 2008, 10:55 AM
> Bonjour,
> Beaucoup des "paradoxes" de la relativité
> viennent du fait que l'on utilise les grandeurs
> newtoniennes qui n'ont plus cours. Ainsi n'y
> a-t-il pas de distance (rigide) en relativité.
> Utilisez le temps propre et tout ira mieux.
> Cordialement,
> Jean Eisenstaedt

Mesdames et Messieurs,

Il y a quelques années j'ai publié un article (très mal écrit) dans
DOGMA:

http://dogma.free.fr/txt/PVInconsistance.htm
"Les sciences de la nature en proie à l’inconsistance"

La réaction était zéro bien sûr mais maintenant les Anglais entament
une discussion qui pourrait avoir des répercussions même en France:

http://www.personal.leeds.ac.uk/~phl...consistent.htm
"Recently there has been regenerated interest in inconsistency in
science, sparked by Mathias Frisch`s Inconsistency, Asymmetry and Non-
locality (OUP, 2005). The remarkable central claim of this book is
that classical electrodynamics is an inconsistent theory. Various
commentators have taken issue with this claim on different grounds.
Perhaps in the end it comes down to what the theory of classical
electrodynamics exactly is. Is there a single thing, the theory, or a
cluster of different theories? And is the theory even the kind of
thing which can be called inconsistent? Is Frisch right in saying that
`theories do not have a tight deductive structure`? The workshop aims
to extend the debate beyond the boundaries of classical
electrodynamics. In past decades there have been many investigations
into apparently inconsistent theories, including Aristotle`s theory of
motion, the early calculus of Newton and Leibniz, Newtonian cosmology,
Planck`s theory of black body radiation, Bohr`s theory of the atom
and, more recently, quantum field theory. In addition to these
examples there is a wealth of examples of inter-theory conflicts, both
past and present. However, the fact that the weaker word `conflict` is
often used is indicative of the continuing uncertainty about what
place inconsistency has in science. Similarly with use of the word
`paradox`. Are these scientific conflicts and paradoxes cases of
inconsistency as logicians understand the term? And if not, is there
warrant to call them `conflicts` at all?"

Pourrait-on discuter de l'inconsistance au sein de REHSEIS? Si oui, je
pourrais présenter une version en français (beaucoup plus riche) de
cet article:

http://www.wbabin.net/philos/valev9.pdf
"Deductive Arguments in Natural Sciences"

Je publie cette lettre ouverte sur le forum fr.sci.physique.

Cordialement,
Pentcho Valev
pvalev***yahoo.com

> Pourrait-on discuter de l'inconsistance au sein de REHSEIS? Si oui, je
> pourrais pr�senter une version en fran�ais (beaucoup plusriche) de
> cet article:

> http://www.wbabin.net/philos/valev9.pdf
> "Deductive Arguments in Natural Sciences"


Oui, et tant que tu es Ã*** le réécrire, tu peux le taper avec un
traitement de texte; parce que lÃ***, c'est manifestement tapé en Word.
Je te conseille LaTeX, déjÃ*** les équations seront plus claires, et la
typographie donnera envie de lire.

bonne écriture
Laurent

On Jun 19, 4:45***pm, Pentcho Valev <pva...***yahoo.com> wrote:
> Lettre ouverte à: Karine Chemla, Jean Eisenstaedt, Thibault Damour,
> Alain Aspect, Roger Balian, Claude Cohen-Tannoudji, Olivier Darrigol,
> Michel Paty, Angèle Kremer-Marietti, Gilles Cohen-Tannoudji, Etienne
> Klein, Michel Bitbol
>
> --- On Fri, 5/23/08, Eisenstaedt Jean <Jean.Eisensta...***obspm.fr>
> wrote:
>
> > From: Eisenstaedt Jean <Jean.Eisensta...***obspm.fr>
> > Subject: Re: PARADOXES OU ABSURDITES DE LA RELATIVITE?
> > To: "Pentcho Valev" <pva...***yahoo.com>
> > Date: Friday, May 23, 2008, 10:55 AM
> > Bonjour,
> > Beaucoup des "paradoxes" de la relativité
> > viennent du fait que l'on utilise les grandeurs
> > newtoniennes qui n'ont plus cours. Ainsi n'y
> > a-t-il pas de distance (rigide) en relativité.
> > Utilisez le temps propre et tout ira mieux.
> > Cordialement,
> > Jean Eisenstaedt
>
> Mesdames et Messieurs,
>
> Il y a quelques années j'ai publié un article (très mal écrit) dans
> DOGMA:
>
> http://dogma.free.fr/txt/PVInconsistance.htm
> "Les sciences de la nature en proie à l’inconsistance"
>
> La réaction était zéro bien sûr mais maintenant les Anglais entament
> une discussion qui pourrait avoir des répercussions même en France:
>
> http://www.personal.leeds.ac.uk/~phl...consistent.htm
> "Recently there has been regenerated interest in inconsistency in
> science, sparked by Mathias Frisch`s Inconsistency, Asymmetry and Non-
> locality (OUP, 2005). The remarkable central claim of this book is
> that classical electrodynamics is an inconsistent theory. Various
> commentators have taken issue with this claim on different grounds.
> Perhaps in the end it comes down to what the theory of classical
> electrodynamics exactly is. Is there a single thing, the theory, or a
> cluster of different theories? And is the theory even the kind of
> thing which can be called inconsistent? Is Frisch right in saying that
> `theories do not have a tight deductive structure`? The workshop aims
> to extend the debate beyond the boundaries of classical
> electrodynamics. In past decades there have been many investigations
> into apparently inconsistent theories, including Aristotle`s theory of
> motion, the early calculus of Newton and Leibniz, Newtonian cosmology,
> Planck`s theory of black body radiation, Bohr`s theory of the atom
> and, more recently, quantum field theory. In addition to these
> examples there is a wealth of examples of inter-theory conflicts, both
> past and present. However, the fact that the weaker word `conflict` is
> often used is indicative of the continuing uncertainty about what
> place inconsistency has in science. Similarly with use of the word
> `paradox`. Are these scientific conflicts and paradoxes cases of
> inconsistency as logicians understand the term? And if not, is there
> warrant to call them `conflicts` at all?"
>
> Pourrait-on discuter de l'inconsistance au sein de REHSEIS? Si oui, je
> pourrais présenter une version en français (beaucoup plus riche) de
> cet article:
>
> http://www.wbabin.net/philos/valev9.pdf
> "Deductive Arguments in Natural Sciences"
>
> Je publie cette lettre ouverte sur le forum fr.sci.physique.

L'interprétation traditionnelle de l'inconsistance (est-elle
applicable à une théorie physique?):

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 ‘por 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."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev***yahoo.com