SCIENCE INFECTED WITH INCONSISTENCY

A theory can be regarded, in the abstract, as a set of propositions. If there are circumstances, either realistic or unrealistic, under which all the propositions in the set are true, the theory is consistent. If there are no such circumstances- e.g. the set contains the propositions "Henry is married " and "Henry is not married "- the theory can be called an inconsistency. An inconsistent theory is extremely dangerous since, somewhat paradoxically, it may possess a great deductive power and produce breathtaking conclusions. Moreover, if it occupies scientists ’ minds for a long time, reasoning in terms of inconsistent propositions becomes "normal", the logical procedure reductio ad absurdum stops working and returning to a consistent conceptual framework proves impossible in the end. Special relativity and thermodynamics are perhaps the most successful inconsistencies ever created. What would happen if a deductive theory proved inconsistent? Imagine that in special relativity, the postulate of constancy of the speed of light and the postulate of equivalency of frames contradict one another. Or that the 7- 8 traditional statements of the second law of thermodynamics (the "less traditional " are perhaps more) are not equivalent. So what would happen? Nothing, if inconsistency had already become an essential feature of deductive science. Such a degeneration of the deductive approach is by no means improbable. Unlike induction which is firmly grounded in empirical reality, deduction is in a sense groundless (depends on a priori assumptions) and this makes it extremely vulnerable. An