How can she rally against pseudoscience when her whole uBeam business was based on pseudoscience?
Was uBeam really based on pseudoscience? I personally do not think so.
All was possible in theory, but just not in any kind of safe, reliable and useful real world scenario.
As stated early in this thread a couple of times: uBeam does not break the laws of physics. It is just not practical.
At some point you could argue it does become pseudoscience.
i.e. when the acoustics experts at uBeam tried to convince her it wasn't practical for the intended application and they should pivot (I know this happened), but she pushed on regardless. That's not following science any more, it's just blind belief and disregarding the engineering.
pseudoscience noun
a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.
Pseudoscience consists of statements, beliefs, or practices that claim to be both scientific and factual but are incompatible with the scientific method.
I hereby dub it
pseudoengineering:
https://twitter.com/eevblog/status/1664222242111385600
How can she rally against pseudoscience when her whole uBeam business was based on pseudoscience?
Was uBeam really based on pseudoscience? I personally do not think so.
All was possible in theory, but just not in any kind of safe, reliable and useful real world scenario.
As stated early in this thread a couple of times: uBeam does not break the laws of physics. It is just not practical.
Yes, it was pseudoscience, because they made claims along the lines of focused ultrasonic beams at very high frequencies being safe for consumer use. uBeam were proposing SPL's of up to 155dB, which exceeds OSHA limits. Despite widespread evidence in the medical device industry that high power ultrasonic devices are dangerous Meredith and her executive team pushed on. Such high power ultrasonic devices are often considered regulated devices, intended to do things like destroy tumours. Ignoring this evidence and handwaving that it was safe is pretty close to what pseudoscientific promoters of things like essential oils do.
How can she rally against pseudoscience when her whole uBeam business was based on pseudoscience?
Was uBeam really based on pseudoscience? I personally do not think so.
All was possible in theory, but just not in any kind of safe, reliable and useful real world scenario.
As stated early in this thread a couple of times: uBeam does not break the laws of physics. It is just not practical.
At some point you could argue it does become pseudoscience.
i.e. when the acoustics experts at uBeam tried to convince her it wasn't practical for the intended application and they should pivot (I know this happened), but she pushed on regardless. That's not following science any more, it's just blind belief and disregarding the engineering.
pseudoscience noun
a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.
Pseudoscience consists of statements, beliefs, or practices that claim to be both scientific and factual but are incompatible with the scientific method.
I hereby dub it pseudoengineering:
https://twitter.com/eevblog/status/1664222242111385600
I kind of like your definition. I think the root of the problem is the way engineering works. There are clear guidelines on the scientific method, that has been established for more than two century. The same is not true for engineering. There isn't an engineering method, where it would be clearly defined on how to approach a new idea. At least there are 3 different methods that I have been using at different companies. A waterfall project will work differently than a V model. An agile dev process will lead to pointless things like ubeam and running in circles producing nothing. If you don't investigate at the beginning of a project if it is even feasible or practical, then you end up with this. Sunken cost fallacy could drive it forever.
Also the decision makers are often not engineers. Decibel is meaningless. Plus there are people with the ego size of a truck that will not take no for an answer.