Received the most wonderful letter , for the first time somebody writes to me with a most excellent question about Dewey B. Larson, Anti Relativity and the differences between Induction and Invention, and I was only too happy to reply. Q. Hi. I dont know if Lord Christ is going to return (lol), but I thought Id reply to your challenge. Watching this video, I find that Larson impressed me much more than I had expected, judging from the person who turned me on to him. However, I also found fault with his differentiation of inductive and inventive theory construction, and I find your answer leaves me with some doubts. In another posting of this full-length video, someone mentioned that there isnt actually anything wrong with the geocentric system, it is a matter of where you observe the events from. Larson agrees, confining his agreement to the mathematical equality of the systems, whilst asserting (as far as I understand him) that there is a real explanatory difference. The epicycles of the extended Ptolemaic world view give the same results in observation as Galileos. And this insight, if it is such, is inherent in Einsteins Relativity theories. I can see it both ways - that the relative view is correct and there is no funcitonal difference between points of view, and the idea that the Sun really is at the centre of the Solar System. The idea of even doubting the latter may seem crazy. Obviously the Sun is the centre of the Solar System! But if we consider the historical process by which it condensed out of particles of gas and dust, it becomes easier to doubt. When did that particular region that was forming the Sun attain the unique status above any other? Does the Sun not contain vast numbers of particles in motion? Is one of them the actual, real centre of the Solar System (SS), or the whole? Which whole would that be, since the Sun is a fully dynamic system evaporating into space? Then, considering a simple system - a binary of two stars orbiting each other - it becomes clearer. There is no centre object, just a theoretic position in space about which they rotate, their collective centre of gravity. A solar system, a galaxy, perhaps a universe, is no different. As far as we can tell, it seems every piece of matter (even if matter is some kind of illusion or product of motion, as Larson asserts) is in gravitational relationship with every other. Anyway, I went on a tangent there. I was going to ask what it means to have all the pieces of missing information, which you say makes it unnecessary to invent a theory. Maybe it would help to explain this in terms of the SS. Do we have all the pieces of information, to be able to say that the SS is heliocentric? What about all the endless head-scratching and disputes about what gravity actually is? Can we simply discern directly what it is that attracts matter to matter and holds matter in orbit around matter? Certainly, I think there are a great many people who would understand Lord Christs point, that the heliocentric conception is also a hypothetical scheme that requires confirmation empirically to be accepted, and many would say that interpretations of empirically-based laws are limited only by peoples imagination. Theres a guy out there who says gravity works because every atom is held to every other atom by invisible elastic bands. I also found Larsons distinction between the two methods of theory construction (inductive and inventive) rather woolly: he said that in inductive theory construction, if a hypothesis is found to be wrong, it is thrown out OR ALTERED (he may have used a synonym for this, and also significantly, I cant be bothered to go back and find it, but he definitely said it might be altered, modified, or some such in his first statement about it). He contrasted this, apparently, with the inventive process, in which a hypothesis has corrective modifications added to it. This seems a semantic difference to me, rather than a real one. Furthermore, unfortunately, while Larson is very persuasive in this talk, when I read some of his formulation of physical theory from his first postulates, I am reminded that genius has long had a close association with madness, and he seems to demonstrate a deep projection in this inventive criticism of the standard model. It seems almost pure invention to me. A great many of the items in this numbered sequence are inventive assertions, which he presents as if derived naturally in sequence. reciprocalsystem/lec/larlect1986.htm It seems utter nonsense, to be honest, designed to give the impression of arriving at the inverse square law, the expansion of the universe, or whatever concepts he concedes from the standard model. If you REALLY just start with a theory that the universe is made up only of motion, what can you REALLY deduce from it? Nothing much at all? Or anything you manage to squeeze in there with a bunch of word salad? A: Hello, and thank you for writing with your wonderful (and good humoured) reply to my writing. It was greatly appreciated, and for the first time in what I can only say has been a long time that I have enjoyed the ideas, thoughts and capacity of the person putting them across. Clearly you are a fairly able philosophical thinker, and posess some basic scientific or mathematics training. Having read and enjoyed the points you have raised, let me now begin in making a reply. I shall note firstly, although it was something that you last mentioned about Larsons deep projection in the inventive criticism. I think you point out very well, that, Larson - who is clearly advocating anti relativity in almost every conceivable way could be described by many as the polar opposite of the Academic scholar. Evidently we must note historically, very much so those which took the polar opposite view of the Academic Scholar during the time of the Epicycle would have existed, but somewhat gone ignored. I think it can be pointed out, in the matter of science at least, that the experience and existence of a person, and even the beleifs that spur the scientific pursuit do not directly affect the outcome of the truth or certainty of their theory being correct. Indeed, we must accept that often, be it Academic or Alternative Academic, boy genius , madman or however you want to put it, that each academic man, like any idea, is formed in the same way as any other - that is to say it is from the benefit of the persons experience. Also sometimes referred by scholars as education or training - often scholars may get confused about the difference between education and training, but as Darson would probably admirably point out, there really is quite a significant difference between the two, whereas education might be generally referred to as the encouraging of the analyzing and cataloguing of natural philosophy, training might be generally referred to as the encouraging of not analyzing, cataloguing or participating in philosophy at all, and rather to be associated with reflex, that is to say a Dog can be trained to behave in a certain way, just like any Academic, and the result will be the same. If the training is good then the person will be a competent and reasonable one, and if the training is less good then the person could be potentially called an incompetent and unreasonable, and therefore unsuitable scientist. I think this shows that academics and madmen are produced in the same way, and although, a general rule may also be established at the likelihood by statistical probability the Academic or conservatively reasonable conclusion is more likely to be right, it cannot be depended upon as a reliable feature. For instance, Darsons analysis, as you have put to me, makes a comparison between the Greek Epicycle, and presents a very alternative understanding than is readily accepted by many Scholars and Academics. Again he did this by putting the idea forward that the reason why Greek thinking failed to understand the true path of the earth around its sun was not because of a lack of methods, ideas, or intelligent people to make the observation. Darson points out that it happened because for a long period it did not occur to anyone that it could in fact be the opposite relative. From a standing point where, for instance, man knows nothing, it is very difficult indeed to understand how man and animal have got so far as they have. And so Darson introduces, the idea, which is not a new one I would add - that there are two types of intelligence, observational and creative intelligence, that is to say induction (to induct magnetically would be sufficient in terms of sound, light, etc), and invention (to create a reason, that a logic can be developed upon. For instance when Rutherford developed his plum pie explanation he was still able to invent the apparatus, and in the same way when Thomson developed his vacuum tube explanation and the electron he was still able to invent the apparatus and explain how it operated, obviously an important part of developing and improving something is being able to understand it. It would of course be embarrassing to any man to not understand his own creation. But, alas this is often, I would suggest probably always - the case. As often is the case, many great inventors had created marvels that whilst they had obtained an explanation thru observation or invention, that any great understanding from either rendered was not limited or constrained by the availability of men or new reasoning, but rather known information which remains unknown. That is to say missing pieces of information, as Darson aptly puts it. Darson puts across the idea that in the case of the Greek epicycle, even thru the keen observation of the stars rotating in the sky, it was not an observation at all, but it was an invention, because, as with all implied inventions (that is creations) there is some amount of assumption involved. If we are to look back to the first axiom of science or mind we would discover that there is a very difficult road ahead, as the first assumption leads to many more assumptions, or in other words, a science built up on foundation after foundation in this way would be an appalling triumph of illogic, yet however nature and the cosmos has seemed to have done a wonderufl job with humanity and human reasoning, well - at least for some anyway! You write about how invention works on HYPOTHESIS->TEST-> MODIFY > TEST>HYPOTHESIS and that you had some difficulty in understanding the logical basis that Darson had set out. I was especially intererested by this philosophical tenet myself and so set about learning and familiarising myself with the idea of induction pure observation as it is (which is not actually possible!) but it is described as an ideal condition in this case, and invention which is pure creation in its most general form (which is not actually possible either!), and so as you point out there does appear to be a contradiction in the philosophical reasoning. Lets us though consider , in the ideal condition of possessing all and every piece of information, that is to say being able to observe each particle of charge, matter, or other properties underlying the dimensional fabric of the cosmos, in such a case of reception, sense or observation then it is at the ideal point of fully informed velocity and position, and therefore requires no equation to interchange them as separate properties, again as you will point out yet another (impossible) thing which seems quite childish if I might say so myself. But to fully understand Darson, is not as simple as it may at first be to the seasoned scientist, as Darson has cleverly and carefully pointed out there is no hypothesis in pure observation, there is no test, or a reason to modify, create or invent anything. Indeed, the universe is not created, if we are to learn anything from the academic scholars and scientist which advocate total proofs such as thermal dynamics, engine cannot be created or destroyed. Destroyers of pleasant illusions? yes! Darson points out that, whilst at any time both observational purity induction and creative purity may suffer from either in the case of invention a lack of new observations and an excess of contradictory ones, and the case of induction an excess of observations to which only an invention is presently able to resolve, it still indicates that the invention being created is an untruth, which, represents only some small frame or reference, that is to say local time as Einstein would call it. In a universe which had more dimensions than 4, then such a thing might become a significant play in disproving relativity altogether. Now, I find myself digressing. As it has been well known for quite some time, possibly centuries, that any impertinent question will always lead to pertinent answer, we can see the same in the invention and the observation, as the observation never being truly representative of what is there, and more being representative or what we are and our own atoms, we are just getting used to the idea as quantum physicists, scientists and philosophers that our observational senses in the eye of light, and the ear of sound are only picking up some small spectrum, and therefore the scope and limitation of our tests, hypothesis, and inductive or inventive observtion would be severely constricted by this evident concept, if true. And whilst in the case of invention it may be the only way to make a forward movement logic, I can only imagine it is by some miracle, or the inductive sciences observing the mountain of contradictions which slowly build up in the inventive sciences. Darson has a very good understanding on the philosophical difference of the two, and he defines it well, if not haphazardly, and it requires more than 2 or 3 listens to fully appreciate what it is that he says, and what he says is that the invention collects prizes called contradictions and assumptions, and the observation collects prizes called misobservations. The idea that anyone could ever observe the universe as it was, would mean of course there would be no need to invent a theory, because theories only are needed when a limited amount of information existed. To human beings, from the beginning of existence, not just science, there is a limited capacity, and therefore us human beings, not unlimited in their observational and computational, mehanical activities must make logical analysis and hypothesis unaided by the vision of the complete picture, and yet we shall seek to make it. Isaac Newton for instance relied on tests, just like invention, except Newton would observe the activity before hypothesising, and so the simple difference between induction and invention is that observation occurs in invention between the hypothesis and the change or between the hypothesis and the conclusion (before it is kept or discarded) wheras in induction the observation occurs always before the hypothesis and the change , or before the hypothesis or the conclusion, whereas in invention an assumption must always be tested, in induction there can be no assumption, and so it results in the inductive principle of HYPOTHESIS - > TEST - > DISCARD , really darson has made a mistake here , he meant to say OBSERVATION->HYPOTHESIS->TEST->DISCARD, The other major difference is that induction (much like as the law of thermal dynamics is written) shows that it cannot be created or destroyed, and it simply exists. In these terms a property that can scientifically or mathematically identify an ideal inductive observation is a term that it is never changed or substituted, wheras in the terms a property that can be scientifically or mathematically identified an ideal inventive creation is a term that is a result from the change or substitution of other virtual properties that do not exist in the real universe. This, I believe is a general form of what Darson meant in the way he conveyed himself. I must apologise as the hour is quite late, and I hope the answer does some justice to the topic The problem with philosophy is that it often deals with ideal situations, and whilst by many uneducated few that may be seen as cheating, I am sure it has for some time been the delight of the greatest and most creative inventive dreamers, and men of poetic and artistic observation that we have yet to see the most of! I do believe this helps answer your question, and if it doesnt you should write to me back as I would like that and enjoy reading your reply, Signing off now as its 1AM, but hope all is well MY best wishes, Adam
Posted on: Mon, 08 Sep 2014 00:06:31 +0000