|
Post by Lone Wanderer on Nov 29, 2017 10:10:57 GMT
Pseudoscience describes any belief system or methodology which tries to gain legitimacy by wearing the trappings of science, but fails to abide by the rigorous methodology and standards of evidence that are the marks of true science. Promoters of pseudoscience often adopt the vocabulary of science, describing conjectures as hypotheses, theories, or laws, providing "evidence" from observation and "expert" testimonies, or even developing what appear to be mathematical models of their ideas. However, in pseudoscience there is no honest attempt to follow the scientific method, provide falsifiable predictions, or develop double blind experiments. Although pseudoscience is designed to appear scientific, it lacks all of the substance of science. rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pseudosciencerationalwiki.org/wiki/List_of_pseudosciences
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Nov 29, 2017 10:35:00 GMT
Yes! It isn't real science but I do find it interesting nonetheless.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2017 15:51:18 GMT
Yeah, phrenology was one such science, used in Django Unchained. And it was developed in Edinburgh, the place where I ended up doing my post graduation.
|
|
justme
New Member
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
|
Post by justme on Jan 10, 2018 7:11:22 GMT
The most dangerous pseudoscience of all was not described or listed at either of the above links. That is the dominant scientific establishment propagation of appeals to authority, ad hominem accusations and other logical fallacies to classify minority opinions as pseudoscience. When Science is unable to falsify a falsifiable proposition, or worse, treats one unfalsifiable proposition as being scientific while treating another equally unfalsifiable proposition as pseudoscience, all science connected with such hocus-pocus suffers and becomes itself pseudoscience.
|
|
|
Post by methonatu on Jan 10, 2018 9:14:06 GMT
The most troubling version of Pseudoscience is that which uses bad auxiliary philosophical principles to interpret accepted scientific evidence and observable facts. Great examples are those of Cognitive Science vs New age claims about Consciousness, Evolution vs Intelligent Design, Quantum Mechanics vs Quantum "theories",Psychology vs Parapsychology, Astronomy vs Flat Earth,Social Sciences vs Politics etc. So in my opinion,pseudo philosophy plays a huge role in all these pseudo-scientific efforts.
Science bases its interpretations and conclusions on Methodological Naturalism's auxiliary principles.Methodological Naturalism identifies our limits in our observations and by the use of logic's rules and principles, it defines our standards when it comes to accept a claim without known truth value. The success of Methodological Naturalism is evident through the 300 years-run away success of science in our epistemology.
Pseudoscience, on the other hand, replaces science's principles with those of idealism,dualism,occasionalism etc. By default such claims lack parsimony, falsifiability,decent standards of evidence, descriptive or predictive power and they are far beyond the concept of a working Null Hypothesis.
The fact is that philosophy is fundamental in our scientific inquiries and bad philosophical principles produce bad scientific claims.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 12, 2018 19:48:13 GMT
I think there's no difference between 'real' and pseudoscience 'till we all are staying in unknown position to our future.
Imagine, that at the End humanity died in agony, pain and suffering being tired of wars, explorations and endless quarrels. If we would know this, all the science had become nothing.. or not?.. Some folks still would be trying to make another weapons to kill each other.
Or imagine, that the End humanity had known that we should be more politely and tolerant to each other, and that knowledges were absolutely useless for understanding of each other, and for love to each other...
So, all the routes are great! We can't say that Astrology is worse than Astronomy and Geromancy is better than Alchemy.
|
|
Aardbei
New Member
Posts: 8
Likes: 5
Age: 23
|
Post by Aardbei on Jan 26, 2018 11:23:14 GMT
I like to think that science is one of the many systems and languages for exploring and talking about the world that has developed over the course of humanity. And perhaps its been a particularly effective and globally adopted way of doing so. Still, like all systems and languages, it has its own unique mindset and lens into the world. And ultimately, like any language, it's just a set of metaphors for relating our experiences and understandings of what's around us, it is its own idiom.
I like to be open to any ideas that may be non-sciencific, because they are still ways of thinking that can be perfectly valuable to any number of people for any number of reasons. I like to avoid falling into the thinking that unless I can put an idea into scientific language that it is without merit. Because every idea that anybody has ever had has been formed by a thinking mind that made *some* connection with *something*. And many, many ideas may not have merit according to science, but that's okay! I'm happy to open my mind up to the sea of possible metaphors that I can personally find value in.
|
|
cinchknight
New Member
Posts: 15
Likes: 10
Ethnicity: Canadian
Country: Canada
Politics: Socialist
Religion: N/A
Relationship Status: Single
Age: 33
|
Post by cinchknight on Feb 21, 2018 10:55:44 GMT
"When Science is unable to falsify a falsifiable proposition, or worse, treats one unfalsifiable proposition as being scientific while treating another equally unfalsifiable proposition as pseudoscience, all science connected with such hocus-pocus suffers and becomes itself pseudoscience." What's an example that you have of this?
|
|
Mocha
Full Member
Posts: 194
Likes: 128
Meta-Ethnicity: Coffee
Ethnicity: Caffè Latte
Ancestry: 90% Milk / 6% Cocoa Powder / 4% Espresso
Relationship Status: Caffeinated
Age: Freshly Brewed
|
Post by Mocha on Feb 21, 2018 14:11:16 GMT
"When Science is unable to falsify a falsifiable proposition, or worse, treats one unfalsifiable proposition as being scientific while treating another equally unfalsifiable proposition as pseudoscience, all science connected with such hocus-pocus suffers and becomes itself pseudoscience." What's an example that you have of this? I'll save you the wait: [Cricket noises]
|
|
|
Post by Polaris on Feb 21, 2018 16:38:52 GMT
i also include those who call themselves social scientists
|
|
bluesreligion
Junior Member
Posts: 65
Likes: 57
Religion: Not Religious
Age: 34
|
Post by bluesreligion on Feb 24, 2018 17:27:38 GMT
I find pseudoscience incredibly boring... if you can't show me a use for your science, and the evidence, just go away...
|
|