Irrefutable theories.

From the journal, “The Institute of Mathematics and its Applications”, June 1972, the following statement on page 185 of an article called BAYESIAN STATISTICS, by D.V. Lindley, FIMA, U.C. London.

On page 185,

“ …. As Popper points out (in THE LOGIC OF SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERY) every failed counter-example adds strength to the theory ….”

This must be saying that if a theory passes a test, it is strengthened. That is the idea that led us into the present quagmire. – IC 2020

“Discussion of objections to axiom systems is valuable but the real testing-ground must live in the results that spring from the formal theory….”

This attitude is very dangerous. It leads directly to a situation [the present situation] where current scientific theory is merely a melange of those theories, or axioms, which were not refuted early enough after their inception. After being proposed in the first place, a theory reinforces itself each time it is tested by experience, and as time goes on it becomes less and less vulnerable to refutation because it gradually moulds the whole framework of thought around itself. [This contradicts Kuhn.] It is a flywheel which gradually gathers momentum. If it is not stopped, or deflected early in its career, it gains such momentum that it ignores and crushes everything in its path. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/cattq.htm It becomes Koestler’s “closed system”, Galbraith’s “conventional wisdom”.

http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/howie.htm ; “This theory gives a very good account of many experimental observations. Of course by some amazing fluke it may still succeed when built on a foundation that you believe to be incorrect but so far I am not convinced.”

(The unrefuted theory or axiom gradually moulds the whole framework of thought around itself, because that is the purpose of a theory or axiom.)

Ivor Catt. July 1973.

Crrouch Hall,

Redbourn,

Herts AL3 7EU.

(All but the last sentence a copy of a note dated Oct. 72)

http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x147.pdf is a further development. The author (myself) thought it reinforced classical electromagnetism. However, the nine lines added above in 2011 (fifty years later) give my realisation that it destroys classical electromagnetism. Had I realised that at the time, it would not have got past peer review (= consensus review). The year before, I was the only person to manage to publish on “The Glitch”, a lethal problem, for many years because I camouflaged it with a misleading title. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x84gglitch.pdf ; http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x1bn.pdf ; http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x5a6.htm

Two irrefutable theories are at http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/theory1.pdf

When the sun sends ExH to warm you, does it use electricity? That ExH travels on its own, but the ExH from battery to lamp has to be guided by electric current. Very strange.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_power “Power = vi”, so the sun must be sending electricity to warm you. Where is the electricity in fibre optics? I suppose we have to fog it up with wave-particle duality, the photon. That will cover our tracks. We only have to be schizoid, and all will be well.