Distinguishing Science and Pseudoscience

Post Reply New Topic

Very good article by Rory Coker, professor of physics at the University of Texas.

I have just the book to read on that subject:

-Nonsense on Stilts- by Massimo Pugliucci

ruveyn

Except the difference between science and pseudoscience isn't easy, one only has to look at discredited scientific theories in the history of science to see how hard it is to decide what 'science' is.

The idea that it's easy to know what is and what isn't is ok when dealing with 'low hanging fruit' but gets much much more difficult quickly afterwards, and even then what may seem like low hanging fruit pseudoscience might not be.

The truth is often hard simply put.

Not really...

Theres quite a few rules before you can call anything scientific and alot of science and scientific proof have to match those rules before you can call it science. I agree with that.

However, the rules of science have changed over the centuries and i do not have the courage to say that anno 2010 we've developed the one and only True scientific method for the rest of eternity. I often wonder what science will look like in say, 300 years. Both the applicable part of science and our scientific proof/knowledge.

I also find some scientific proof absolutely laughable. Technically it is scientific proof, but practically its a load of BS. Like last year there was this headline that biological fruit is just as healthy as non-biological fruit. They defined healthy as "equal amount of vitamins" - period. Scientifically, the research was sound. But the simple people conclusion wasn't really, imo. Theres so much more to health than vitamins. Pseudoscience? No. But making the translation from really strictly defined research into the world of loosly formed concepts, theres still alot to work on. But thats an interesting aspect aswell. As science evolves, the less the world exists of loosly formed concepts. However, i wonder how much extra (unresearched) info we miss or stop seeing when we do so. If everyone considered "amount of vitamins" on a scale of whatever as the sole definition of "healthy and unhealthy", then what would we call the amount of toxins on a scale of whatever?

And i see that pseudoscience hovers in these undefined areas of loosly formed concepts. Its just trying to find an explanation that we don't yet have scientifically. We might never have, but then why does it persist?

"Non-biological fruit"? What would that be, like, wax fruit or something?

The only reason we can't get by on the famed sci-fi "food pills" is because the human digestive system requires bulk to work with, not just the nutrients. It's quite possible to get all the nutrients you need from vitamins, milk, and various supplements - but you won't be healthy, because without bulk to drive it all through your system, you won't absorb the nutrients properly.

My favorite quote on science, though, comes from a fanfic, Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality, based on the question of how the Harry Potter series would have been different if young Harry's aunt had married a noted scholar and professor, rather than the proletariat lump she married in the books, and Harry had been raised in an environment that actually encouraged his intellect. This is from an exchange in which Harry is seducing Draco Malfoy to the study of science:

Actually there are creationists who masquerade as "scientists"...the Intelligent Design movement.

science encourages people to believe anything they want. It supplies specious "arguments" for fooling yourself into thinking that any and all beliefs are equally valid.

Some science is generated by individuals with a small amount of specialized scientific or technical training who are not professional scientists and do not comprehend the nature of the scientific enterprise—yet think of themselves as "scientists."

neither I nor any informed colleague I have ever asked about this, knows of any single case in which this has happened during the hundreds of years the full scientific method has been known to and used by scientists.

Being wrong or mistaken is unavoidable; we are all human, and we all commit errors and blunders. True scientists, however, are alert to the possibility of blunder and are quick to correct mistakes.


Science has been established since before 1810? When rarely wrong they quickly correct mistakes?

This man blows more smoke than a big Cuban cigar.

Science is a collection of errors that are slowly disproved, yet still published.

Only people who studied these books, passed tests, got degrees, are real people, and scientists?

Physics has become a religion. They are in it for the money, and have produced nothing in the last fifty years.

Science changes when our world view changes. The Universe is mostly magical, things we do not understand, which is harder to admit than just being wrong.

The worst thing they do is have answers based of weak evidence, from a hundred years ago.

The Foundation of Science is built on sand.