Date: Feb 28, 2013 3:25 AM
Author: Pentcho Valev
Subject: Re: LE FUTUR (LA FIN ?) DE LA SCIENCE
"Science et idéologie : une relation à haut risque. (...) Ce phénomène de plus en plus présent dans toutes les sphères publiques, professionnelles, semble être causé par un principe de plus en plus répandu : l'idéologie. Et la lutte de pouvoir qu'elle entraîne. Cette affirmation à caractère général peut être perçue comme une simplification. Et pourtant c'est une réalité, et si l'on s'accorde pour dire que le débat politique est désormais orienté autour des valeurs et de la morale pour finir par faire l'impasse sur les véritables enjeux politiques et économiques qui devraient l'animer, la science n'échappe pas à ce glissement des plus inquiétants. (...) L'étude du réchauffement climatique : au début... tout était normal..."
La relativité d'Einstein n'a été qu'une idéologie dès le début:
Peter Hayes "The Ideology of Relativity: The Case of the Clock Paradox" : Social Epistemology, Volume 23, Issue 1 January 2009, pages 57-78: "In the interwar period there was a significant school of thought that repudiated Einstein's theory of relativity on the grounds that it contained elementary inconsistencies. Some of these critics held extreme right-wing and anti-Semitic views, and this has tended to discredit their technical objections to relativity as being scientifically shallow. This paper investigates an alternative possibility: that the critics were right and that the success of Einstein's theory in overcoming them was due to its strengths as an ideology rather than as a science. The clock paradox illustrates how relativity theory does indeed contain inconsistencies that make it scientifically problematic. These same inconsistencies, however, make the theory ideologically powerful. (...) There is, nonetheless, some divergence about how to resolve the clock paradox amongst mainstream scientists and philosophers who address the issue. The majority suggest that (a) the general theory is required to resolve the paradox because like "Kritikus" they have deduced - quite correctly - that it cannot be explained by the special theory. However, a minority believe that (b) the paradox can be explained by the special theory because they have deduced - again quite correctly - that it is incredible to suppose that only the general theory can explain a prediction ostensibly arising from the prior special theory. Each deduction, considered in isolation, is allowable within the mainstream; what is not permitted is to bring the two of them together to conclude that (c) neither the special nor the general theory explains time dilation. (...) Einstein's theory of relativity fails to reconcile the contradictory principles on which it is based. Rather than combining incompatible assumptions into an integrated whole, the theory allows the adept to step between incompatible assumptions in a way that hides these inconsistencies. The clock paradox is symptomatic of Einstein's failure, and its purported resolution is illustrative of the techniques that can be used to mask this failure. To uncover to the logical contradictions in the theory of relativity presents no very difficult task. However, the theory is impervious to such attacks as it is shielded by a professional constituency of supporters whose interests and authority are bound up in maintaining its inflated claims. Relativity theory, in short, is an ideology. (...) If relativity theory is an ideology, then its illusory explanatory power enhances the real power and authority of theoretical physicists. Precisely because Einstein's theory is inconsistent, its exponents can draw on contradictory principles in a way that greatly extends the apparent explanatory scope of the theory. Inconsistency may be a disadvantage in a scientific theory but it can be a decisive advantage in an ideology. The inconsistency of relativity theory - to borrow the language of the early Marx - gives relativity its apparent universal content. This seeming power of explanation functions to enhance the status of the group, giving them power over others through the enhanced control over resources, and a greater power to direct research and to exclude and marginalise dissent."