Search the Community

Hello everybody, I have started translating UPB into Czech language and publishing it on mises.cz recently. After publishing third part (Introduction – The „null zone“, The Causalities, „Middle Truths“) very ferocious debate started under this part. I will try to sum up main objections against it and ask the community to help answer them. I will appreciate also references or links. Thanks in advance. Last two points 4) and 5) I consider just as nitpicking. I will always start with the citation from the book. 1) “When we let go of a rock in our hand, it falls – this is the real evidence of the senses, not that the Earth is fixed and immovable. The idea that the world is immobile is an incorrect assumption that contradicts the direct evidence of our senses, which is that everything falls. If everything falls, the world cannot be fixed and immovable.” Critic contends that this whole implication is not true because the fact that rock falls does not imply that the earth move. In hypothetical situation, the Earth can be in the middle of the whole universe, gravity will hold, but the Earth is not moving. Therefore, he claims that Stefan uses the same nonscientific approach, which he criticizes. 2) “It is true that we are very different from animals. It is not true that we were created by a god and have a soul.” He claims that this just statement without proof and that existence of the god is neither confirmed nor falsified and that many scientists around the world accept it. 3) “Personally, a man believes that that which cannot be perceived does not exist –intellectually, science has proven this repeatedly. However, in the “null zone” of theology, the exact opposite proposition holds true – the axiom there is that that which cannot be perceived must exist.” Here he claims that things, which we cannot perceive, exist and give example of atoms. We cannot perceive them but they exist. And that science hasn't proven it. In addition, attacked the axiom where he claims that no theology holds that “everything that we cannot perceive exists”. 4) “If we look at the technological and economic progress of mankind, we see more or less a flat line for countless millennia, followed by massive and asymptotic spikes over the past few hundred years.” He contends that there is no asymptote for the curve of the wealth growth. 5) “The greatest mathematical theory cannot be valid if applying it returns incorrect change at the checkout counter.” Here critic contends that mathematical theories are not about counting and you cannot make checkout counter in differential calculus for example.