I tried to make it clear in the examples I gave that theories with large amounts of irrefutable evidence are not discarded, they end up being contained within the new theory. They are not 2 theories, they are one. The old theory contained in the new one, arises as some limit is approached within the new theory. This must happen, otherwise all the old evidence, all of it, would necessarily be meaningless.
In the case of real theories, it's not just faulty logic and bad assumptions that would be tossed with the bad hypothesis, it's the observations themselves that would have to be tossed. Theory rests on real evidence. If the evidence shows something to be true, then that something is true. Note that "the old theory" with hard evidence was never all that complete. A new theory which encompasses the old is always a more complete theory. That's why science builds, rather than rebuilds.
"But my point again, was, for the purposes of classification as put forth by Patrick Henry and Coyoteman, what are we to do with said systems?"
They are simply failed hypothesis. In each case the logic is unsound and the hypothesis does not represent reality. It may resemble it, but since it does not represent reality, no predictions can be made, only srbitrary ad hoc additional hypothesis can be added after the fact.
I understood that all along, I was just going for the more general case of where one had a widely-accepted system which WAS pretty much entirely discarded...
In the case of real theories, it's not just faulty logic and bad assumptions that would be tossed with the bad hypothesis, it's the observations themselves that would have to be tossed. Theory rests on real evidence. If the evidence shows something to be true, then that something is true. Note that "the old theory" with hard evidence was never all that complete. A new theory which encompasses the old is always a more complete theory. That's why science builds, rather than rebuilds.
See also correspondence principle (as I believe you mentioned). In some cases, the new theory is developed as a result of specific data that, no matter how much you push on it, just doesn't fit into the theory. Ultraviolet catastrophe, as I believe you mentioned as well; not to mention photoelectric effect. Or even the neutrino as an alternative to abandoning conservation laws...OTOH, you sometimes have cases where the new theory is confirmed by otherwise anomalous results (relativity and the precession of the perhelion of the orbit of Mercury).
They are simply failed hypothesis. In each case the logic is unsound and the hypothesis does not represent reality. It may resemble it, but since it does not represent reality, no predictions can be made, only srbitrary ad hoc additional hypothesis can be added after the fact.
THAT's what I was looking for--what to classify them as in the PH/Coyoteman Scientific CatechismTM (suggested sobriquet).
Cheers!