Postulate Progression and Modern 'Science' (?)

[Hazen]

In reading the various threads/websites concerned with Dr B's PA dealings, vBlokes homeopathy adventures and others, I'm seeing the words 'theory' and 'law' scattered around like confetti.

When I was studying for my engineering qualifications, I learned the following sequence as the standard path:

A (usually) scientist or engineer proposes an idea for consideration.
This is then published to be exposed to peer review.
This idea is then examined and wherever/however possible, tested by experimentation, mathematical analysis and so forth.
If, after considerable scrutiny, this idea appears to have some validity, you have a theorem.
Ordinarily, the next phase would usually take decades, but technological advances of the last few decades have speeded this process up:
If after exhaustive testing, experimentation and analysis, your theorem still appears to be valid, you have a theory.
The next stage has previously taken up to a century, or more, but as before, city sized atom smashers, orbital observatories, petaflop capable supercomputers and such like will speed this process up again:
If after all possible avenues of test, experimentation and analysis have been performed and your theory still stands up and I mean watertight under any/all possible circumstances with no doubts or questions remaining from any academic/scientific body, then you have a law.

Note: There were always anomalies: The grid of a thermionic valve (lo tech) is at a negative potential, even though it is only connected on one side - ie. no current can flow. Ohms law states V=IR. If no current flows, then I = 0. If I = 0 then V must = 0, yet it is not. When questioned on this point, and others, the lecturer would invariably reply with something along the lines of 'you'll just have to take my word for it'.

So, I have these possibilities:

1. What I had learned was incorrect to begin with
2. The scientific method is no longer valid
3. All the 'information' being presented on these websites/papers/threads is complete and utter b****cks, merely using scientific terminology as a method of swaying the ignorant/credulous as to its authenticity

I tend to favour (surprise, surprise) option 3:
Even though science still has a long way to go; the hunt is on for the Higgs boson, yet the wave/particle duality of light is no closer to being resolved. Dark matter has taken a back seat to dark energy, yet no-one knows wtf either are.

Sorry, rant over.

[tkingdoll]

Pseudoscience? It abounds on woo sites, sure.

Can you give some specific examples of where 'theory' and 'law' are used inaccurately, "scattered around like confetti" is a bit vague!

[median]

So, I have these possibilities:

1. What I had learned was incorrect to begin with
2. The scientific method is no longer valid
3. All the 'information' being presented on these websites/papers/threads is complete and utter b****cks, merely using scientific terminology as a method of swaying the ignorant/credulous as to its authenticity

There is a fourth possibility that what you had learned was incomplete

Just a thought ???

[Dr B]

I am currently writing a paper entitled "Seven fallacies of reason and thinking" - some of these aspects will be discussed....

How spooky.... :D

Laws are few and far between in psychology etc, but there are some around, i.e., Emmerts law, Humes maxim etc. If you dont know what these are ask me - or use google and you should fair well. 8)

[Jocky]

I'm seeing the words 'theory' and 'law' scattered around like confetti.

When I was studying for my engineering qualifications, I learned the following sequence as the standard path:

A (usually) scientist or engineer proposes an idea for consideration.
This is then published to be exposed to peer review.
This idea is then examined and wherever/however possible, tested by experimentation, mathematical analysis and so forth.
If, after considerable scrutiny, this idea appears to have some validity, you have a theorem.

Hazen,

Question from a non-scientist: Is what you have called a "theorem" here the same thing as a "hypothesis", or not? ???

[Hazen]

I had intended to post some links demonstrating the sort of thing that prompted me to start this thread but unfortunately, my laptop went completely microsoft the other day and after much mucking about, I eventually had to resort to the recovery disks, the process of which appears to have included a low level format of the hard drives, so all my bookmarks have gone (including six weeks worth of client data - oops! I'm in trouble now.)

Basically, a mate's new lady friend who is a 'new age mystic' type, was telling me all about her various woo-isms whilst in the pub, and gave me a list of links to check out (paranormal awakenings was on her list of essential reading), which I did.
So a skipload of mystic nonsense later resulted in the OP which, I admit, isn't much use without references.

There is a fourth possibility that what you had learned was incomplete

Most certainly. I make no claim to be an expert in any subject. Some of the inconsitencies that I have looked further into boiled down to either the full explanation being well beyond the scope of the course, or it is not yet fully understood.
A possible example:
Feynman's 'QED' stated light is made up of particles, stop thinking of it as a wave, yet didn't really go the distance to explain the interference pattern which results from the double slit experiment.

I am currently writing a paper entitled "Seven fallacies of reason and thinking" - some of these aspects will be discussed....

I'll be interested to read it.

Question from a non-scientist: Is what you have called a "theorem" here the same thing as a "hypothesis", or not

I'll have to check on that

[Dr B]

I cant imagine cherills PA group being recommended for anything......ahhhh well...perhaps only a lesson in woo-ism....for new skeptics to learn how to spot it...

[median]

I cant imagine cherills PA group being recommended for anything......ahhhh well...perhaps only a lesson in woo-ism....for new skeptics to learn how to spot it...

Dr B

I can't say the forum is as bad as all that. ???

There are individuals on there that take things on board and will listen to suggestions.
I think the problem lies in a two-fold area; firstly, people have a very poor grasp of scientific method or as you have pointed out on numerous occasions and I daresay will continue to point out , critical thinking (not a hangable offence in its self; people just require education)
secondly, because a lot of physical phenomena can be ascribed a paranormal explanation on the basis of a lack of knowledge in a particular area.

Or maybe, oh my god, I've been infected by a virus...I've got....in-woo-enza

Quick some one give me a Randi-enema :D