{"title":"赫伯特-丁格尔与 \"十字路口上的科学\"","authors":"Taha Sochi","doi":"arxiv-2407.13697","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this article we pay tribute to Herbert Dingle for his early call to\nre-assess special relativity from philosophical and logical perspectives.\nHowever, we disagree with Dingle about a number of issues particularly his\nfailure to distinguish between the scientific essence of special relativity (as\nrepresented by the experimentally-supported Lorentz transformations and their\nformal implications and consequences which we call \"the mechanics of Lorentz\ntransformations\") and the logically inconsistent interpretation of Einstein\n(which is largely based on the philosophical and epistemological views of\nPoincare). We also disagree with him about his manner and attitude which he\nadopted in his campaign against special relativity although we generally agree\nwith him about the necessity of impartiality of the scientific community and\nthe scientific press towards scientific theories and opinions as well as the\nnecessity of total respect to the ethics of science and the rules of moral\nconduct in general.","PeriodicalId":501348,"journal":{"name":"arXiv - PHYS - Popular Physics","volume":"41 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Herbert Dingle and \\\"Science at the Crossroads\\\"\",\"authors\":\"Taha Sochi\",\"doi\":\"arxiv-2407.13697\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In this article we pay tribute to Herbert Dingle for his early call to\\nre-assess special relativity from philosophical and logical perspectives.\\nHowever, we disagree with Dingle about a number of issues particularly his\\nfailure to distinguish between the scientific essence of special relativity (as\\nrepresented by the experimentally-supported Lorentz transformations and their\\nformal implications and consequences which we call \\\"the mechanics of Lorentz\\ntransformations\\\") and the logically inconsistent interpretation of Einstein\\n(which is largely based on the philosophical and epistemological views of\\nPoincare). We also disagree with him about his manner and attitude which he\\nadopted in his campaign against special relativity although we generally agree\\nwith him about the necessity of impartiality of the scientific community and\\nthe scientific press towards scientific theories and opinions as well as the\\nnecessity of total respect to the ethics of science and the rules of moral\\nconduct in general.\",\"PeriodicalId\":501348,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"arXiv - PHYS - Popular Physics\",\"volume\":\"41 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"arXiv - PHYS - Popular Physics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/arxiv-2407.13697\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"arXiv - PHYS - Popular Physics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/arxiv-2407.13697","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
In this article we pay tribute to Herbert Dingle for his early call to
re-assess special relativity from philosophical and logical perspectives.
However, we disagree with Dingle about a number of issues particularly his
failure to distinguish between the scientific essence of special relativity (as
represented by the experimentally-supported Lorentz transformations and their
formal implications and consequences which we call "the mechanics of Lorentz
transformations") and the logically inconsistent interpretation of Einstein
(which is largely based on the philosophical and epistemological views of
Poincare). We also disagree with him about his manner and attitude which he
adopted in his campaign against special relativity although we generally agree
with him about the necessity of impartiality of the scientific community and
the scientific press towards scientific theories and opinions as well as the
necessity of total respect to the ethics of science and the rules of moral
conduct in general.