🚀 go-pugleaf

If theories based on false hypotheses are not rejected at an early
stage, when logical falsification (REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM or
demonstration of the invalidity of an argument) is still feasible, the
malignant growth produces theoretical monsters in the end that are
unassailable, no matter whether you try experimental or logical
falsificiation:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1134/is_10_117/ai_n31116578/
"Even if we set the value of the cosmological constant to account for
the accelerating expansion of the universe, the implications of a
nonzero constant boggle the mind. The constant's mathematical value
corresponds to the amount of dark energy that lurks in every cubic
centimeter of space. It follows that, as the cosmos expands and new
space comes into existence, every cubic centimeter of new space will
contain just as much dark energy as every old cubic centimeter does.
Accordingly, the universe not only expands at an accelerating rate,
but also produces a correspondingly growing amount of dark energy.
Here we find the ultimate free lunch--energy produced without any
investment beyond the original creation of the universe. But doesn't
this violate the law of conservation of energy, which states that the
total amount of energy remains constant, though it may change its form
(matter being a form of energy, with a value expressed by Einstein's
famous equation, E = [mc.sup.2])? No, because this law applies to any
isolated, closed system--and the universe, which continuously creates
new space, does not satisfy that condition."

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00000313/
Jos Uffink: "The Second Law made its appearance in physics around
1850, but a half century later it was already surrounded by so much
confusion that the British Association for the Advancement of Science
decided to appoint a special committee with the task of providing
clarity about the meaning of this law. However, its final report
(Bryan 1891) did not settle the issue. Half a century later, the
physicist/philosopher Bridgman still complained that there are almost
as many formulations of the second law as there have been discussions
of it (Bridgman 1941, p. 116). And even today, the Second Law remains
so obscure that it continues to attract new efforts at clarification.
A recent example is the work of Lieb and Yngvason (1999)......The
historian of science and mathematician Truesdell made a detailed study
of the historical development of thermodynamics in the period
1822-1854. He characterises the theory, even in its present state, as
'a dismal swamp of obscurity' (1980, p. 6) and 'a prime example to
show that physicists are not exempt from the madness of crowds' (ibid.
p. 8).......Clausius' verbal statement of the second law makes no
sense.... All that remains is a Mosaic prohibition ; a century of
philosophers and journalists have acclaimed this commandment ; a
century of mathematicians have shuddered and averted their eyes from
the unclean.....Seven times in the past thirty years have I tried to
follow the argument Clausius offers....and seven times has it blanked
and gravelled me.... I cannot explain what I cannot
understand.....This summary leads to the question whether it is
fruitful to see irreversibility or time-asymmetry as the essence of
the second law. Is it not more straightforward, in view of the
unargued statements of Kelvin, the bold claims of Clausius and the
strained attempts of Planck, to give up this idea? I believe that
Ehrenfest-Afanassjewa was right in her verdict that the discussion
about the arrow of time as expressed in the second law of the
thermodynamics is actually a RED HERRING."

Pentcho Valev wrote:

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?"

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