German Thought was profound, philosophic.

The British one is close to commonsense, scientific. In a utilitarian way.

Nietzsche showed that the knowledge which begins with or from a given principle, will always determine a false wisdom. And for that, he exemplify with the metaphor of the camel and the hedgerow: «if we leave a camel behind a hedgerow and, paring it later, we find the camel there and say: here is a camel!, a truth was really exposed, but it has a relative value, tautological and quite anthropomorphic».

In philosophy, we know that one thing can be the certainty based on a truth and another one is a belief based on faith. And philosophy always looking for the (real) truth.

Paul Davies, in his (very British) scientific way, wrote the following in a book entitled How to Build a Time Machine?: «(...) The results were unmistakable: time ran more slowly in the airplane than in the laboratory, so that when the experiment was over, the airborne clocks were 59 nanoseconds slow relative to the grounded clocks, exactly the amount predicted in Einstein's theory. (...) ...physicists can readily measure the effect using accurate clocks. (...)».

Well: what science considers? What is its target?

Science is a positive assumption, above all. It starts from that. And positive shall be everything we can give it reality.

But what is real? We continue to consider, yet in a positive way, that «real» is what we SEE, first of all. As what we cannot see, we just ignore it!

The ideal we suppose that simply has a negative reality. Because it is not visible and touchable. And as a negative that it is, according us, it is considered to be not really real.

This, of course, is a pretentiously positive, is an objectivistic, is a materialistic, prejudice. Under the empiricist consideration.

But to see can be (positively) not enough. We can see, and what we see at last reveals itself to have no real existence, no consistence, being just a vision, a mere hallucination (nevertheless, the hallucination does not leave to have a certain kind of reality, consisting it of the ideal: it has an ideal reality, at least).

So, we need to have another term to definitely sentence the reality of anything. And that way is the TOUCHING.

If we see and can touch what we see, we'll say, on it, that it is real «in fact». That it is an «objectivity».

Nowadays, technology can find out reality where our eyes don't achieve it. And so it became a kind of an extension of the eye, even when the untouchable is invisible too (as it happens with the so-called atomic sub-particles). And also nowadays, when our eyes see but hands cannot touch, we can use technology to touch instead of our hands, thus supposing to confirm the reality of anything.

But in philosophy we know that, to definitely consider as «naturally real» a given fact or phenomenon, it's not enough to see and touch it directly or indirectly.

For that, is necessary another condition: that the fact or the phenomenon both have to be PERMANENT.

However, it is not sufficient to have the staying of anything. This has to have a permanency... IMMUTABLE.

So, permanency and immutability are the two main conditions to give a REAL reality to anything.

Where can we find them together in Nature?

Davies said us, in his writing, something like science «can get truly RIGOROUS results».

But he forgot that, to get a true confirmation, we have to repeat, many times, the SAME experience.

Nevertheless, the RELATIONS in a same experiment were not the SAME anymore in two quite different moments of the experience. And even more, if we consider the same two corresponding moments of two similar (but not simultaneous) experiments designed to confirm a same thing.

In the concerning case (or in the given example) we have to consider the relations between plane and Earth, Earth and Sun ('cause Earth is not alone), Moon and Earth, Sun and Moon, plane and Sun, plane and Moon, Sun and stellar local group... and so on.

Then the 9.9% of this moment or that of the experiment is not the SAME of the same moment in a supposedly equal second experience designed to confirm the first one.

That's why is a frivolity to try to measure the time of Earth's life since the beginning (or try to measure the beginning of the Universe) with the same rule used to quantify the time on Earth NOW.

If we could repeat that experiment exhaustively, maybe we would find out that an intrusive zero was added to the prior account again and again, and always we cried out each time: «damned»!

When science lies on vicious believes all the time and, in whiteness, it sentences a reality like being this or that, the corresponding civilization that use it cannot go ahead further than it has done before in its purposes of evolution.

Science without philosophy is an innocent task. Even if its philosophy be the empiricism. But this is not a philosophy: just a BELIEF! And a white belief, supposing that reality is truly real in a sensory way.

Life is just a passage. All Nature is a passage. So, human measurements are passages too.

Then science cannot assure that a given measurement was «absolutely rigorous». But Paul Davies did it because was and certainly is a man of faith and believes. So he believes that it is like that!

Sorry. I prefer the German Thought of the yesterdays.

EV,

02-11-2015.