🚀 go-pugleaf

Initial hypotheses (axioms, postulates), according to Karl Popper,
should be "bold", which means that the prior probability that they are
false is relatively high. Then Popper seems to see no way of getting
rid of false hypotheses unless the theory as a whole is rejected,
because of conflict with the so-called basic statements "whose
acceptance or rejection, in its turn, depends upon our decisions".
Even in the presence of such a conflict however false hypotheses could
still be saved: Popper: "On the other hand, I also realized that we
must not exclude immunizations, not even all which introduce ad hoc
auxiliary hypothesis....All this shows not only that some degree of
dogmatism is fruitful, even in science, but also that logically
speaking falsifiability or testability cannot be regarded as a very
sharp criterion."

False initial hypotheses should be rejected at an early stage, e.g. by
using REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM, before partisans have managed to convert
the theory into an ideology:

http://www.labnews.co.uk/laboratory_article.php/4514/2/attack-on-great-pillar-of-physics

The ideology is unfalsifiable - the white is called black, 2+2=4 is
replaced by 2+2=5 etc:

http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/
George Orwell "1984": "In the end the Party would announce that two
and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable
that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their
position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the
very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their
philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was
terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise,
but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two
and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the
past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist
only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable what then?"

Pentcho Valev wrote:

In 1887 the Michelson-Morley experiment confirmed the antithesis of
Einstein's 1905 light postulate, the equation c'=c+v given by Newton's
emission theory of light, and contradicted the thesis that the speed
of light is independent of the speed of the light source (the future
light postulate). Now Einsteinians fiercely teach that the Michelson-
Morley experiment so unambiguously confirmed the thesis that the speed
of light is independent of the speed of the light source that Einstein
had no other choice but to advance his 1905 light postulate.

Neither the 1919 nor any other solar eclipse was able to supply
reliable data allowing one to discriminate between deflection
predicted by Newton's emission theory of light and deflection
predicted by Divine Albert's Divine Theory, no matter how modern
methods were used. Yet Einsteinians fiercely teach that in 1919 Arthur
Eddington gloriously confirmed Divine Albert's Divine Theory.

In 1960 Pound and Rebka measured the gravitational redshift factor to
be 1+V/c^2, where V is the gravitational potential. Einsteinians
fiercely teach that this result was a glorious confirmation of Divine
Albert's Divine Theory but close inspection shows that in fact it
REFUTED Divine Albert's Divine Theory.

In 1924 Arthur Eddington forced Walter Adams to cheat: Adams published
the gravitational redshift suggested by Eddington and predicted by
Divine Albert's Divine Theory, not the gravitational redshift he had
really measured (the Sirius B fraud). Yet for 50 years this was
regarded as the most reliable confirmation of Divine Albert's Divine
Theory.

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com