Postulates and pseudoscientific hypothesis difference?

[Karagoz]

A postulate is a statement that is taken to be true, to serve as a premise or starting point for further theories.
(e.g. Bohr's postulates)

Hypothesis is a theory which can after testing be accepted or rejected. But a postulate is something that is assumed to be true without proof.

Among other characteristics of pseudoscience, some of them is that pseudo-scientific "theories" are based on:
1) hypothesis that is never tested
OR
2) hypothesis that is falsified
OR
3) hypothesis that is so vague that it can't be tested

Postulates too aren't tested, they are something that is assumed to be true without proof (like in point one above). So isn't it same as pseudo scientific hypothesis that are never tested?

So why is it that theories based on postulates are real science, but not "pseudoscience", when they too aren't tested?

What's the difference between pseudo-scientific hypothesis and scientific postulates?

 

[.Scott]

What's the difference between pseudo-scientific hypothesis and scientific postulates?

Postulates are used in Math and logic, not in the physical sciences.

 

[Stephen Tashi]

In science, postulates are tested. The statement that postulates are something that is assumed without proof refers to the use of postulates in mathematics.

 

[Dale]

Postulates too aren't tested, they are something that is assumed to be true without proof

This isn’t the way it is usually understood. See, for example, section 3 here:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html

 

[anorlunda]

So why is it that theories based on postulates are real science, but not "pseudoscience", when they too aren't tested?

It may seem like that, but it is not always true. The best example in my mind are the postulates for quantum mechanics (QM). If you assume the postulates are true, that leads to the mathematics of QM. The math makes predictions. Those predictions have been amply tested by experiment and verified to a ridiculous number of decimal places. So in that case, the postulates themselves aren't tested directly but the consequences resulting from the postulates are thoroughly tested.

There is also a many-to-one relationship that QM illustrates. Several postulates together lead to one result. The result is verified, but there is not necessarily a test for each postulate one-at-a-time.

You should also be aware that terminology is also heavily influenced by accidents of history and custom. For example, Newton's Laws of Motion versus Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity. No special reason why one is a law and the other a theory. There are no language police enforcing consistency in the use of such words: law, theory, postulate, axiom, hypothesis ... Mathematics tends to be more formal and strict than science in use of language.

 

[sophiecentaur]

Postulates too aren't tested, they are something that is assumed to be true without proof (like in point one above). So isn't it same as pseudo scientific hypothesis that are never tested?

It’s

If the results of a postulate are not tested, at least to some degree, then the postulate is of little use. But they are a necessary tool for Reverse Engineering Science. It is often possible to falsify a postulate without any explicit experiment. Assume the Earth is Flat (postulate) then recall your World trip . . .

 

[A.T.]

What's the difference between pseudo-scientific hypothesis and scientific postulates?

"Scientific postulates" lead to quantitative predictions which can be tested.

 

[russ_watters]

So why is it that theories based on postulates are real science, but not "pseudoscience", when they too aren't tested?

Postulates are often themselves tested separately, but beyond that(the speed of light is constant...), when the hypothesis is tested that indirectly tests the postulates. In pseudoscience, often nothing is tested.

 

[Karagoz]

This isn’t the way it is usually understood. See, for example, section 3 here:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html

But in a Norwegian physics study book a postulate is described as: a statement that's not proven, but we take it as basis on further work with a theory.

Postulates are often themselves tested separately, but beyond that(the speed of light is constant...), when the hypothesis is tested that indirectly tests the postulates. In pseudoscience, often nothing is tested.

But if a postulate is tested and verified, why then it's named a postulate?
E.g. why it's not "Bohr's theories", "Bohr's model on electrons' energy levels" but "Bohr's postulates" (the two postulates on electrons and their energy levels)?
Or is it that postulates themselves aren't tested or verified, but the theories and predictions that are based on the postulates are tested and verified?

We know that different atomic gasses give different absorption spectra, and different lights have different energies. But how are the Bohr's two postulates about electrons and their energy levels verified?

 

[Dale]

But in a Norwegian physics study book a postulate is described as: a statement that's not proven, but we take it as basis on further work with a theory.

That sounds like it is discussing mathematics rather than physics. Of course, there is considerable cross-over between mathematics and physics, but insofar as you can draw a line between them "proof" refers to math (a theorem is proven) and "evidence" refers to physics (a theory is consistent with evidence). So the book may be talking about the role of mathematical theorems and proofs in theoretical physics. No data-driven statement is ever considered proven.

Of course, the terminology is not rigid even just in English and when you bring in other languages and translations then words become even less precise. That is one reason that math is so heavily used. For your concern about the term "postulate", I would just say that word usage varies so don't worry too much about inconsistencies.

 

[Karagoz]

That sounds like it is discussing mathematics rather than physics. Of course, there is considerable cross-over between mathematics and physics, but insofar as you can draw a line between them "proof" refers to math (a theorem is proven) and "evidence" refers to physics (a theory is consistent with evidence). So the book may be talking about the role of mathematical theorems and proofs in theoretical physics. No data-driven statement is ever considered proven.

Of course, the terminology is not rigid even just in English and when you bring in other languages and translations then words become even less precise. That is one reason that math is so heavily used. For your concern about the term "postulate", I would just say that word usage varies so don't worry too much about inconsistencies.

But why it's called Bohr's postulates, instead of Bohr's hypotheses or theory?

When the book describes Bohr's postulates, his atomic models etc., it also quickly mentions that a postulate is an "assertion" without any proof or argument, that is used as basis for further theory. Also similar to "axioms" in logic.

 

[Dale]

But why it's called Bohr's postulates, instead of Bohr's hypotheses or theory?

Usage varies. I don’t think that there is one universal definition that has always worked and been used consistently everywhere throughout time. Expecting consistent usage is doomed from the outset and will always have counter examples.

 

[russ_watters]

But if a postulate is tested and verified, why then it's named a postulate?

Since no theory is ever 100% proven and every fact has error bars, there is *always* more than one possible direction you can take the logic unless you specify exactly what you want to start with.

I'll expand more with the example from Special Relativity: At the time Einstein proposed it there were just starting to be indications that the speed of light might be constant/frame invariant (such as the failed Michelson Morley experiment), but it was far from a closed question. So there were two+ options for starting a line of logic:
1. The speed of light is constant (Einstein's choice).
2. The speed of light varies in some yet to be discovered way (many possible specific lines of reasoning to explore).

Today we might be more like 99.999% sure, but that still leaves an opening for someone to explore what the implications of the other postulate might be.

 

[Mister T]

Postulates too aren't tested, they are something that is assumed to be true without proof (like in point one above). So isn't it same as pseudo scientific hypothesis that are never tested?

If you look at the postulates of special relativity, for example, it is true that you assume them to be true and then use them to draw conclusions. But then those postulates are tested when we compare those conclusions to what we observe to happen. For example, one of the conclusions is time dilation and we have observed time dilation and actually depend upon its validity to run our Global Positioning System.

An example of a pseudo scientific postulate would be a claim that Earth is 6000 years old but only behaves "as if" it were 3 or 4 billion years old. There are no conclusions to be drawn from that postulate that can be compared to what we observe as a way to test its validity.

 

[A.T.]

But in a Norwegian physics study book a postulate is described as: a statement that's not proven,...

The theories in physics are not proven either.

...but we take it as basis on further work with a theory.

A theory which is then tested with observations, and confirmed or falsified. But never actually proven.