Final answer:
The statement is false because a broken clock that does not change is not reliable for measuring time accurately. Examples from historical timekeeping methods illustrate the necessity for accuracy and consistency, like the effects of temperature variations on pendulum clocks.
Step-by-step explanation:
The statement that "A broken clock that stays the same time is reliable but not a valid measure of time" is False. A broken clock, while consistent in showing the same time, does not provide a valid measurement of the passing time. This is illustrated by Bertrand Russell's example from 1948, where a man looks at a stopped clock at the exact time it displays, thereby unknowingly getting the correct time through sheer luck. This scenario demonstrates that reliability in timekeeping requires accurate and consistent measurements over time, which a stopped clock cannot provide despite being right twice a day.
Furthermore, accurate timekeeping has been a challenge over history. Devices like pendulum clocks are temperature-sensitive, which affects their accuracy as they expand or contract with temperature changes. Pendulum clocks run too slow in the summer because the pendulum lengthens due to the heat and too fast in the winter when the pendulum contracts due to the cold. Reliable and accurate timekeeping is crucial, given that activities and technologies in our lives are heavily regulated by time measured against Earth’s rotation.