Thomas Kuhn criticized falsifiability because it characterized “the entire scientific enterprise in terms that apply only to its occasional revolutionary parts,” and it cannot be generalized. In Kuhn’s view, a delimitation criterion must refer to the functioning of normal science. Kuhn objects to Popper’s entire theory and excludes any possibility of rational reconstruction of the development of science. Imre Lakatos said that if a theory is scientific or non-scientific, it can be determined independently of the facts.He proposed a modification of Popper’s criterion, which he called “sophisticated (methodological) falsification”.
Criticism of Falsifiability
As eugenics is defined, it is very difficult to make a clear distinction between science (medicine, genetic engineering) and eugenics as a included field. And to set a line over which genetic engineering should not go further, according to moral, legal and religious norms. If we accept the help of genetics in finding ways to fight cancer, diabetes, or HIV, we also accept positive eugenics as they are defined now. And if we accept genetic screening, and interventions on the unborn baby, or abortion, we also implicitly accept negative eugenics. In addition, at government level, although eugenics are officially denied, it has been legalized in many countries until recently, and is still accepted and legalized, albeit in subtle forms, even these days. The section Introduction defines the term and classification modes. The section History of Eugenics follows eugenics from the ancient period, the introduction of eugenics by Francis Galton, the practice of eugenics as a state policy in various countries, and the present eugenics (liberal eugenics). I then analyze various issues raised by the Ethics of Liberal Eugenics, and I have developed a special section for the Future of Eugenics, focusing on the human genome project. Finally, in the Conclusions, I express my personal views on the current practice of eugenics.
The Future of Eugenics
MultiMedia Publishing EPUB (ISBN 978-606-033-215-2), Kindle (ISBN 978-606-033-214-5), PDF (ISBN 978-606-033-216-9) https://www.telework.ro/en/e-books/evolution-and-ethics-of-eugenics/
Evolution and Ethics of Eugenics
One of the most disputed controversy over the priority of scientific discoveries is that of the law of universal gravitation, between Isaac Newton and Robert Hooke. Hooke accused Newton of plagiarism, of taking over his ideas expressed in previous works. In this paper I try to show, on the basis of previous analysis, that both scientists were wrong: Robert Hooke because his theory was basically only ideas that would never have materialized without Isaac Newton’s mathematical support; and the latter was wrong by not recognizing Hooke’s ideas in drawing up the theory of gravity. Moreover, after Hooke’s death and taking over the Royal Society presidency, Newton removed from the institution any trace of the former president Robert Hooke. For this, I detail the accusations and arguments of each of the parts, and how this dispute was perceived by the contemporaries of the two scientists. I finish the paper with the conclusions drawn from the contents.
Keywords: Isaac Newton, Robert Hooke, law of gravity, priority, plagiarism
Robert Hooke’s contribution to the law of universal gravitation
Isaac Newton’s contribution to the law of universal gravitation
Robert Hooke’s claim of his priority on the law of universal gravitation
The controversy in the opinion of other contemporary scientists
What the supporters of Isaac Newton say
What the supporters of Robert Hooke say
MultiMedia Publishing EPUB (ISBN 978-606-033-206-0), Kindle (ISBN 978-606-033-205-3), PDF (ISBN 978-606-033-204-6) https://www.telework.ro/en/e-books/isaac-newton-vs-robert-hooke-on-the-law-of-universal-gravitation/
Isaac Newton vs. Robert Hooke on the law of universal gravitation
Ontology engineering, along with semantic Web technologies, allow the semantic development and modeling of the operational flow required for blockchain design. The semantic Web, in accordance with W3C, “provides a common framework that allows data to be shared and reused across application, enterprise, and community boundaries” and can be seen as an integrator for various content, applications and information systems. The most widely used blockchain modelling system, by abstract representation, description and definition of structure, processes, information and resources, is the enterprises modelling. Enterprise modelling uses domain ontologies by model representation languages.
Blockchain Design and Modelling
Despite the criticism of Karl Popper’s falsifiability theory for the demarcation between science and non-science, mainly pseudo-science, this criterion is still very useful, and perfectly valid after it was perfected by Popper and his followers. Moreover, even in his original version, considered by Lakatos as “dogmatic”, Popper did not assert that this methodology is an absolute demarcation criterion: a single counter-example is not enough to falsify a theory; a theory can legitimately be saved from falsification by introducing an auxiliary hypothesis. Compared to Kuhn’s theory of revolutions, which he himself later dissociated from it transforming it into a theory of “micro-revolutions,” I consider that Popper’s demarcation methodology, along with the subsequent development proposed by him, including the corroboration and the verisimilitude, though imperfect, is not only valid today, but it is still the best demarcation methodology. For argumentation, I used the main works of Popper dealing with this issue, and his main critics and supporters. After a brief presentation of Karl Popper, and an introduction to the demarcation problem and the falsification methodology, I review the main criticisms and the arguments of his supporters, emphasizing the idea that Popper has never put the sign of equality between falsification and rejection. Finally, I present my own conclusions on this issue.
Keywords: Karl Popper, falsifiability, falsification, demarcation problem, pseudo-science
1 The demarcation problem
4 Falsification and refutation
5 Extension of falsifiability
6 Criticism of falsifiability
7 Support of falsifiability
8 The current trend
MultiMedia Publishing EPUB (ISBN 978-606-033-209-1), Kindle (ISBN 978-606-033-208-4), PDF (ISBN 978-606-033-207-7) https://www.telework.ro/ro/e-books/the-distinction-between-falsification-and-refutation-in-the-demarcation-problem-of-karl-popper/
The distinction between falsification and refutation in the demarcation problem of Karl Popper
In Newton’s correspondence with Richard Bentley, Newton rejected the possibility of remote action, even though he accepted it in the Principia. Practically, Newton’s natural philosophy is indissolubly linked to his conception of God. The knowledge of God seems to be essentially immutable, unlike the laws of nature that can be subjected to refining, revision and rejection procedures. As Newton later states in Opticks, the cause of gravity is an active principle in matter, but this active principle is not an essential aspect of matter, but something that must have been added to matter by God, arguing in the same Query of Opticks even the need for divine intervention.
About God in Newton’s correspondence with Richard Bentley and Queries in Opticks
The interpretation of Isaac Newton’s texts has sparked controversy to this day. One of the most heated debates relates to the action between two bodies distant from each other (the gravitational attraction), and to what extent Newton involved God in this case. Practically, most of the papers discuss four types of gravitational attractions in the case of remote bodies: direct distance action as intrinsic property of bodies in epicurean sense; direct remote action divinely mediated by God; remote action mediated by a material ether; or remote action mediated by an immaterial ether. The purpose of this paper is to argue that Newton categorically rejected the types of direct action as the intrinsic property of bodies, and remote action mediated by a material ether. Concerning the other two types of action, direct through divine intervention and mediated through an immaterial environment, Newton has repeatedly stated that he does not know the exact cause of gravity, but in both cases, he has directly involved God, directly in the first case and as the primary cause (the environment/ether being the secondary cause) in immaterial mediated action. But since recognition of direct distance action could have given some credit to those who thought gravity could be essential to matter, and hence to atheism, Newton never openly acknowledged the possibility of such an idea.
Keywords: Isaac Newton, action at a distance, God, gravity, gravity law, gravitation
Correspondence with Richard Bentley
Queries in Opticks
MultiMedia Publishing https://www.telework.ro/en/e-books/isaac-newton-on-the-action-at-a-distance-in-gravity-with-or-without-god/
Isaac Newton on the action at a distance in gravity: With or without God?
About the possibility of time traveling based on several specialized works, including those of Nicholas J. J. Smith (“Time Travel“), William Grey (”Troubles with Time Travel”), Ulrich Meyer (”Explaining causal loops”), Simon Keller and Michael Nelson (”Presentists should believe in time-travel”), Frank Arntzenius and Tim Maudlin (“Time Travel and Modern Physics“), and David Lewis (“The Paradoxes of Time Travel”). The article begins with an Introduction in which I make a short presentation of the time travel, and continues with a History of the concept of time travel, main physical aspects of time travel, including backward time travel in the past in general relativity and quantum physics, and time travel in the future, then a presentation of the Grandfather paradox that is approached in almost all specialized works, followed by a section dedicated to the Philosophy of time travel, and a section in which I analyze Causal loops for time travel. I finish my work with Conclusions, in which I sustain my personal opinions on the time travel, and the Bibliography on which the work is based.
Keywords: time travel, grandfather paradox, causal loops, temporal paradoxes, causality
History of the concept of time travel
The philosophy of time travel
MultiMedia Publishing: https://www.telework.ro/en/e-books/causal-loops-in-time-travel/
Causal Loops in Time Travel
Despite the Nazi horrors, in 1953 the new eugenics was founded, when Watson and Crick postulated the double helix of DNA as the basis of chemical heredity. In 1961, scientists have deciphered the genetic code of DNA, laying the groundwork for code manipulation and the potential building of new life forms. After thirty years from the discovery of the DNA structure, the experimenters began to carry out the first clinical studies of human somatic cell therapy.
The practice of prenatal genetic tests identifies genes or unwanted genetic markers. Parents can choose to continue pregnancy or give up the fetus. Once the preimplantation genetic diagnosis occurs, potential parents can choose to use in vitro fertilization and then test early embryonic cells to identify embryos with genes they prefer or avoid. Because of concerns about eugenics, genetic counseling is based on a “non-directive” policy to ensure respect for reproductive autonomy. The argument for this counseling service is that we should balance parental autonomy with child’s autonomy in the future. Specialists have not yet given a clear answer to the question of whether these practices should be considered eugenic practices, or if they are moral practices.
The new (liberal) eugenics
As John Henry states, Newton simply wants to reaffirm the truth of God’s omnipresence without directly involving him in the physics of the world system. Newton simply wants to distance himself from a Cartesian concept of God and convince the atheists that God is a real presence extended in the world. God must exist in space for the space to exist, but God does not only act through contact. Henry believes that Andrew Janiak and Hylarie Kochiras give us a wrong picture of a Newton who believes in opportunism. Newton, Henry asserts, has always assumed that God acted through secondary causes:
Newton’s Principia on God-mediated action