Science and Pseudoscience - A Primer

James R

03-16-03, 09:45 PM

This thread is a brief summary of what I believe are the primary differences between Science and Pseudoscience. I hope that this will help people draw the line for themselves when they are confronted with new ideas on this forum and elsewhere.

First, a couple of brief definitions, courtesy of Michael Shermer:

Science: A set of methods designed to describe and interpret observed or inferred phenomena … aimed at building a testable body of knowledge open to rejection or confirmation.
Psuedoscience: Claims presented in such a way that they appear scientific even though they lack supporting evidence and plausibility.

Already, these definitions suggest some things to look for in evaluating claims. Scientific claims should be testable and open to rejection by contrary evidence. Pseudoscientific claims are made to appear scientific, often for ulterior motives such as monetary gain, political or ideological purposes, or to gain personal fame for their proponent(s).

Here are some things to ask when you come across a new idea:

1. Is it testable?

If an idea is claimed to be scientific, there should be a way to test the idea, either by making certain observations and gathering evidence or by performing certain experiments or other tests. Ideas which are not testable may actually be correct, but they are not scientific, because science aims to build a testable body of knowledge.

2. Is it repeatable/reliable?

If a scientific fact is true, it should remain true regardless of who tests it and when they test it. In contrast, pseudoscientific ideas are often unreliable. Psychic powers seldom work in the presence of skeptics, and they are never producible on demand. Moreover, only some people can use these powers, apparently. In contrast, given appropriate methods and equipment, anybody can verify the speed of light.

3. Is it supported by evidence?

All science is supported by evidence. In contrast, we are usually asked to accept pseudoscience on the basis of somebody's authority. Thus, psuedoscientists will often tell you how long they have spent working on their pet theory. They will tell you that many prominent people reject relativity, so it must be false. They will tell you that so many people have seen UFOs that they must exist, but when you ask them to show you convincing evidence of a UFO they cannot do so.

4. Who has the onus of proof?

In science, the onus of proof regarding a claim is on the claimant. If I say that relativity is wrong, it is up to me to support my arguments. If I claim to have invented a water-driven engine, it is up to me to demonstrate a working model. In contrast, pseudoscientists always say "Prove me wrong." They claim the moon is made of green cheese and expect somebody else to prove it isn't so. Science expects them to produce a sample of moon cheese or other evidence which supports their claim.

5. Is it well delineated?

Most advances in science have implications in a rather narrow field, though there are a few exceptions. In contrast, almost invariably, pseudoscientific theories will claim to revolutionise at least one major field of study, such as cosmology or evolution. Psuedoscientists always attack the most established and high-profile physical theories - relativity, quantum mechanics, evolution. They never attempt to revise one small area, such as providing a new measurement of the half-life of plutonium.

6. Is it open to change?

Scientific ideas are always open to change when new evidence comes along. For example, the big bang theory was shown to have a number of problems as a result of observations by astronomers. The theory was changed to include an inflationary period, and the modified theory solves many of the problems. No scientific theory claims to be the last word on something. Since science is tied to evidence, new evidence always has the potential to change the science.

In contrast, pseudoscientists tend to hold onto their ideas, even after they have been convincingly rebutted by argument or evidence. They also tend to be selective as to what evidence they consider valid; they select what supports their theories and ignore what is inconvenient.

7. Is it, at least in principle, falsifiable?

All good scientific theories are, in principle, falsifiable. When a scientific idea is proposed, the person putting it forward will usually suggest tests and/or observations which could show whether the idea is wrong or right.

Pseudoscientific ideas, on the other hand, are often deliberately constructed so as to be untestable and therefore unfalsifiable.

8. Is it realistic?

Scientists are (usually) prepared to accept what the world throws at them, even if it means throwing out cherished ideas in the face of new evidence. Psuedoscience tends to be full of wishful thinking. Whilst it would be great if we all had psychic powers, scientists won't believe in them without good evidence - but pseudoscientists will.
------

If, after asking these questions, an idea still seems plausible, then chances are that it is scientific. That doesn't mean it is right, of course - that depends on the evidence.

MacM

03-16-03, 10:23 PM

James R.,

I seem to be your first responder once again. I've read your post. I don't find anything disagreeable but I still see flaws in application.

1 - Why aren't String, TOE, M & P Brane then considered pseudo-science. They are not testable. At least not yet?

2 - We have only been doing the gravity testing since the first week of December and we still have one more series of tests to complete.

Once done, I do intend to post the results. Others will be able to duplicate our methods and will get the same results. So in that regard I would assume it becomes a bonifide subject of discussion.

But what of the many other aspects of the theory which have not been tested but in consideraton of the many predictions that have been found to exist, seem to be reasonable in light of the gravity findings.

Do they become tenable on this forum or are they pseudo-science. How can a theory be partly science and partly pseudo-science? It seems grossly inefficient to bifurcate a concept into those aspects that have been tested and those that have not.

Many portions depend upon other aspects of the concept to have any meaning what-so-ever.

The above are just questions not complaints.

And finally, I still see a problem of using the pseudo-science as a repository for new concepts, since it primarily contains material clearly not sceintific in nature. - i.e. Alien Abduction. If pseudo-science bore the lable as you defined it I would not have a concern posting there but that is not the case. pseudo-sceince is considered totally wacky and devoid of any possible chance of becoming scientific fact. Therein lies the difference in having a "Development Forum".

James R

03-16-03, 11:00 PM

MacM:

1 - Why aren't String, TOE, M & P Brane then considered pseudo-science. They are not testable. At least not yet?

Good question. Let's look at my list...

1. Is it testable?

It is my understanding that certain aspects of string theory are testable. String theory also seems to be consistent with existing results. However, there are several different types of string theory, and as yet there is no good way to test which one (if any) is correct. String theorists are, however, working very hard to come up with practical tests for the theory. In the meantime, string theory is speculative and not really a part of accepted science. It sits at the border.

2. Is it repeatable/reliable?

String theory predicts the same results every time you do an experiment, so it is fine on this point.

3. Is it supported by evidence?

This is covered above. Essentially, string theory, where it can be tested, seems to be consistent with what we already know, but we don't know whether it is correct where it goes beyond what we know - yet.

4. Who has the onus of proof?

Definitely, the onus of proof is on the proponents of string theory to prove that it is viable.

5. Is it well delineated?

The things which string theory seeks to explain are very clearly expressed, and the theory also includes limits on what it can explain, how accurate it will be, and so on. Moreover, it is a mathematically precise theory - a desirable trait for all physical theories.

6. Is it open to change?

String theory has gone through many changes since it was first put forward. M-theory is the latest incarnation.

7. Is it, at least in principle, falsifiable?

Yes - or at least it will be as soon as accessible tests are proposed.

8. Is it realistic?

It's really too early to tell.

------
In summary, string theory is a tentative theory at the moment. Nobody is asserting that it must be correct. Scientists are simply exploring the implications and looking for ways of testing it. Their aim is to build a testable body of knowledge open to refutation, so string theory, under the definition given at the top of this thread, is certainly science. We don't yet know if it is also correct science.

2 - We have only been doing the gravity testing since the first week of December and we still have one more series of tests to complete. Once done, I do intend to post the results.

I assume you are talking about your UniKEF theory. Good. I look forward to seeing the results and testing protocols.

But what of the many other aspects of the theory which have not been tested but in consideraton of the many predictions that have been found to exist, seem to be reasonable in light of the gravity findings.

Do they become tenable on this forum or are they pseudo-science. How can a theory be partly science and partly pseudo-science?

It's not the case that something which is untested is not science. Only things which are untestable are not science. If you can suggest appropriate tests, then even if those tests haven't been performed you're still adding to the plausibility of your theory.

Many portions depend upon other aspects of the concept to have any meaning what-so-ever.

There's nothing wrong with that. If I have a theory that matter is made up of little elf-like beings, it doesn't actually matter if we can never see the elves. What matters is that the postulates of the theory ultimately lead to things we can test. If my elf theory passes all tests, then it is scientific.

MacM

03-16-03, 11:17 PM

James R.,

Excluding the fact that "String, etc" are mathematical in nature (which frankly is their only underpinnings that I am aware of); I have taken the liberty of re-writting one of your passages to try and make a point (not to make a direct comparison).

Re-written:
In summary, UniKEF theory is a tentative theory at the moment. Nobody is asserting that it must be correct. UniKEF researchers are simply exploring the implications and looking for ways of testing it. Their aim is to build a testable body of knowledge open to refutation, so UniKEF theory, under the definition given at the top of this thread, is certainly science. We don't yet know if it is also correct science.

So why do they get to sit on the fence (Theory Development).

Why no development status for other theories. It is either science or pseudo-science?. Why if (and it has) String Theory has been through so many variations would your rules not have placed it into pseudo-science upon the first failure?

spookz

03-16-03, 11:30 PM

pseudoscience forum is a black hole. be magnanimous and kind please, theory d sounds good

James R

03-17-03, 01:49 AM

MacM:

Why no development status for other theories. It is either science or pseudo-science?

Theories in development can still be science. In fact, you could say that most scientific theories are in devlopment, at least in the sense that new data could always come along and force them to change (or be proved incorrect).

Why if (and it has) String Theory has been through so many variations would your rules not have placed it into pseudo-science upon the first failure?

String theory hasn't actually failed any tests so far. It seems to fit with other physical theories, and it's predictions (so far as they have been tested) appear to be supported.

MacM

03-17-03, 02:17 AM

James R.,

String theory hasn't actually failed any tests so far. It seems to fit with other physical theories, and it's predictions (so far as they have been tested) appear to be supported.

1 - What tests has it passed other than mathematical extrapolations?

2 - UniKEF hasn't been tested so it hasn't failed any tests either (this deliberately circumvents my screw up, since it wasn't a proper formulation on my part that doesn't affect the concept itself).

3 - UniKEF gravity tests will be bonifide science and testable by others to verify or refute. Does UniKEF then become science?

4 - UniKEF finds that it does require infinite energy to accelerate a mass to v = c, but only if there is energy transfer via relavistic velocity. In that light the mathematical extrapolation that v = c is no longer a limit.

5 - LR has no v = c limit. So UniKEF fits accepted science. What basis is there to (as some have suggested) to place it in pseudo-science.

I do not claim for a second that UniKEF compares with these other theories. I am just trying to show that your rules are not uniform in their application. In comparison at a most basic level, it has (soon to be released) testing support, it fits other existing theories currently in science, etc.

I am not trying to be a thorn here. I am trying to determine the demarcation lines for science vs pseudo-science and what I see is a moving target.

Some theories are OK even if not tested or completely tested. They are still "On the Fence" even after numerous revisions because of prior short comings but on this forum it seems one strike and you are out.

Am I missing something.

James R

03-19-03, 01:10 AM

MacM:

1 - What tests has [string theory] passed other than mathematical extrapolations?

String theory isn't really my area of expertise, so I can't really answer your question. I'm not up to date with the latest results.

2 - UniKEF hasn't been tested so it hasn't failed any tests...

Fair enough. What testable predictions does it make which differentiate it from other theories?

3 - UniKEF gravity tests will be bonifide science and testable by others to verify or refute. Does UniKEF then become science?

Absolutely. Of course the tests will determine whether it is good science or bad science.

4 - UniKEF finds that it does require infinite energy to accelerate a mass to v = c, but only if there is energy transfer via relavistic velocity. In that light the mathematical extrapolation that v = c is no longer a limit.

I don't understand.

5 - LR has no v = c limit. So UniKEF fits accepted science.

What's LR?

I do not claim for a second that UniKEF compares with these other theories. I am just trying to show that your rules are not uniform in their application. In comparison at a most basic level, it has (soon to be released) testing support, it fits other existing theories currently in science, etc.

Fair enough. If you can show that these things are true then I'm quite happy to keep UniKEF on this forum.

I am trying to determine the demarcation lines for science vs pseudo-science and what I see is a moving target.

It is only a moving target in that each idea must be judged on its merits (or lack thereof). The principles are consistent.

Some theories are OK even if not tested or completely tested.

Yes. The important thing is that they are testable, not that they are tested.

They are still "On the Fence" even after numerous revisions because of prior short comings but on this forum it seems one strike and you are out.

Not true.

MacM

03-19-03, 09:42 AM

James r.,

[QUOTE]
2 - UniKEF hasn't been tested so it hasn't failed any tests...

Fair enough. What testable predictions does it make which differentiate it from other theories?

******************
Reply: The most obvious is the gravity testing. Assuming it shows what I claim I guess my question is how much additional flexability, if any, would that buy for discussion of less supported aspects of the concept without resulting in the diversionary attacks?
********************

4 - UniKEF finds that it does require infinite energy to accelerate a mass to v = c, but only if there is energy transfer via relavistic velocity. In that light the mathematical extrapolation that v = c is no longer a limit.

I don't understand.

*********************
Reply: We see the affect and testing reflects increased energy to accelerate objects that are independant inertial systems. That is where energy is being transferred via a relative velocity - i.e. a particle accelerator. But that affect isn't due to increased mass.

It is the consequence of decreased energy transfer efficiency. with relative velocity. The missing applied energy becomes stored in space simular to the field around a coil. When the relative velocity is decreased the energy returns making the momentum appear as though mass had increased, just as the field around a coil returns to maintain current when you attempt to cut of power. A flywheel affect.

You can envision it as "Imaginary power" of an electrical system.

No such affect is seen in a system where acceleration is being produced without relative velocity between the energy source, thrust engine and accelerated load - i.e. a rocket.

That conclusion is drawn from purely geometric views of possible causes of Lorentz Contraction.

If that is true the untested prediction that v = c is a limit now only applied to motion induced between two inertial systems but not a rocket.
*************************

5 - LR has no v = c limit. So UniKEF fits accepted science.

What's LR?

***********
Reply: Lorentz Relativity
***********

They are still "On the Fence" even after numerous revisions because of prior short comings but on this forum it seems one strike and you are out.

Not true.

************
Reply:Overall your stated policy is a good one, if its application is along the lines stated. My opinion was formed in regard to the treatment of my effort to explain the very first prediction made in UniKEF. A prediction which 10 years later was verified by NASA. What I got back was a lot of coments about spelling, words usage and other comments not directed at the primary posting.

It also resulted in demands for a complete theory to be posted that fully supported the UniKEF concept. In otherwords there was no willingness to consider the prediction and the findings correlation in absence of a complete presentation of the theory that produced the prediction.

That is far to complex to post as a response to the basic issue of prediction and verification.

Thanks for taking time to clarify the MSB policy. I will be looking forward to posting the testing data and then may attempt to further extrapolate UniKEF from that foundation but not without at least this piece of supporting evidence.

James R

03-19-03, 09:34 PM

MacM:

This thread is probably not the most appropriate place to discuss the details of your UniKEF theory, so I won't respond in detail to your comments on it here. If you would like to discuss this further, please feel free to start a separate thread on it.

MacM

03-19-03, 10:51 PM

James R.,

I agree and it was not my intent to use this string for that purpose but to try and clarify treament of new concepts under the stated guidlines.

Please feel free to remove those strings that you feel are misplaced here.

Peter2003

04-24-03, 05:30 PM

James R.,

I fully agree with the posted criteria for science and pseudoscience. Probably one may more strictly emphasize the requirement for logical consistency as a basic scientific trait and thus to incorporate more mathematics into science.

Maybe physics and mathematics will one-day merge into a universal theory, which introduces the creation of universal space (scale). Then every one may cut, e.g., curved or straight, space tailored to his needs from this theory. By changing this universal scale one may peer into the self-similar structure of reality.

You are quite right letting people to decide for themselves what is scientific and what is not. Truth is born from colliding ideas. Truth will save us from SARS, AIDS and other perils not someone's misunderstanding, which readily plays Big Brother along its way.

MacM

05-02-03, 09:36 AM

James R,

Just a note of interest.

chroot was opossed to an Alternative Science or Theory Development topic. But I notice that Physics Forum has one.

Don't see a big level of pseudo-science or assualts occuring there.

Persol

05-02-03, 11:48 AM

Wasn't that graivty report supposed to be out "by the end of April"?

MacM

05-02-03, 02:43 PM

Persol,

Still in progress. We learned a few strange things and are doing more testing. In the mean time there is a large photo album that will give you some insight to what we are doing.

You can access the photo album without having to join.

http://groups.msn.com/McCoinUniKEFTheory/home.htm

Thanks for asking.

The wait will be worth it.

MAc

James R

05-03-03, 12:18 AM

MacM:

If the Alternative theories section of Physicsforums seems like the place for you, go there by all means.

MacM

05-03-03, 12:35 AM

James R.,

I believe you have deliberately missed the point. This is your show you run it. But ch's attitude about the issue amused me considering they have that channel.

I'll wait till I can post under your guidelines of Science and then you can work a bit harder to be negative.

chroot

05-03-03, 03:58 PM

Actually, I remember being an extremely vocal proponent of both a "theory development" forum AND a moderator who was actually willing to use it.

You would do well, MacM, to stop speaking for others.

- Warren

MacM

05-03-03, 04:45 PM

chroot,

If my memory failed me on this point then you have my apology. I do know that even though James R., put it up to a vote and the vote was favorable. He then choose not to pursue that alternative.

In any case congratulations on instituting that forum, it seems to be working fine.

zanket

05-03-03, 04:58 PM

I remember chroot saying goodbye and how nice sciforums became after that. Alas, it must’ve been a dream.

Crisp

05-03-03, 07:06 PM

Hi MacM,

"http://groups.msn.com/McCoinUniKEFThe......"

If you are going to post some of the summaries found there on this forum, you'd better be prepared for a truckload of criticism. I just overlooked two summaries and to be completely honest, they are plagued with incorrect interpretations, false extrapolations and plain wrong statements of/from the theory of special relativity.

Good luck!

Crisp

MacM

05-03-03, 11:53 PM

Crisp,

I would appreciate either a post on UniKEF or an e-mail regarding your concerns about the summaries. Any definitive flaws will be corrected. If it is a matter of interpretation or misinterpretation it will be considered.

Thanks for the heads up.

MacM

chroot

05-04-03, 02:50 PM

Originally posted by zanket
I remember chroot saying goodbye and how nice sciforums became after that. Alas, it must’ve been a dream.
Don't worry, I don't plan on discussing any science here anymore. I still read this forum now and again for laughs.

- Warren

RDT2

05-04-03, 03:28 PM

Originally posted by chroot
Don't worry, I don't plan on discussing any science here anymore. I still read this forum now and again for laughs.

- Warren

Warren,

Please don't give up entirely - at least not until Lethe's diff forms notes are complete. Fuxache - I rely on you guys for education in modern physics!

Cheers,,

Ron.

Crisp

05-05-03, 03:11 AM

MacM,

I'll think I'll wait for you to post the summaries here (preferably in a new thread) because I don't want to hijack this sticky for discussing your theory, and I don't think it is appropriate for me to start a new thread "made especially for critising" your theory.

PS: I was refering especially to the "Relativistic Mass" and "Light speed is no limit" summaries on your site.

Bye!

Crisp

Emil Smejkal

06-11-03, 04:01 AM

Hi,
I agree with you, about importance repeat-ability and so, but there is one problem: it's very easy to get theory, but not easy to seek it in the practice. "The gray is theory, the green is tree of life".
For example:
Most important for science (not for pseudo-science) is experiment. Eddington 1919. Repeat-ability is zero. We have better technology then E., but nobody is able to repeat measure, if difference is 2*10^-6 radian and environment has dither cca 1*10^-5 radian.
What are, by your opinion, contemporary cases with the biggest discrepancy? Who will repair it?

E Smejkal

Emil Smejkal

06-12-03, 10:29 AM

James R
To see relation "scince - anti-science" is easy, and beautiful, but there are also other cases. Then relevant relation is "attitude or view by experience team A" versus "attitude or view by experience team B". Non-science is easy. Attitude influenced by one sophist is not so easy, and more dangerous. Do you agree?
Emil

metacristi

06-20-03, 08:17 AM

James R7. Is it, at least in principle, falsifiable?

All good scientific theories are, in principle, falsifiable. When a scientific idea is proposed, the person putting it forward will usually suggest tests and/or observations which could show whether the idea is wrong or right.

Pseudoscientific ideas, on the other hand, are often deliberately constructed so as to be untestable and therefore unfalsifiable.

I totally agree with this requirement in the case of totally nontestable hypotheses however I want to stress the fact that we must be very cautious when rejecting testable hypotheses which have a great power of explanation (but virtually non falsifiable).Superstring theories are a good example here due to their huge number of variants,fully compatible with the observed reality.As Lee Smolin remarked once very well in one of his books they are basically non falsifiable,being in the same time capable to virtually explain everything.Even if some variants of the theory will be disproved virtually there will always remain some valid ones.The only chance to convincingly falsify the superstring hypotheses remain the direct 'observation' of 'things' at Planck scale.Not a very likely situation,at least in the light of what we know now.So that it is possible to never be able to soundly falsify the superstring theories.Still some sort of 'superstrings' could very well exist ontologically...

James R

06-21-03, 12:13 AM

metacristi:

There are some problems with falsifiability as the sole criterion of a scientific theory, which have been discussed by philosophers of science. However, it's not a bad rule of thumb to use, in combination with factors such as the other ones I mentioned.

Peter2003

06-21-03, 05:00 PM

The only thing you have to consider in a theory is satisfaction of David Hilbert’s requirement for lack of self-contraction as a criterion for existence of the objects defined in its axioms.

Can you falsify a math theorem? Good physics should also go that way.

metacristi

06-22-03, 04:07 AM

Peter

What you request is an impossibility.I see three causes for this:

1.Unfortunately science has to rely on a certain number of axioms,we do not have yet the first,true,principles,the dream of Aristotle...

2.Even if we had them scientific theories are based on logic,their predictions are deductions from a given set of premises considered true.Or logic is a characteristic of human minds,there is no necessity that nature should follow the rules of logic.

3.Even if nature does follow the rules of logic with necessity there is another problem linked with the completitude of a certain set of true premises.We know from Godel that all systems containing arithmetics inside are not complete.Or arithmetics is contained by all theoretical systems of premises used in science.Therefore there could still exist truths that cannot be deduced from a given set of true premises+the axioms of arithmetics.

Peter2003

06-22-03, 04:40 PM

metacristi,

quote:
"Or logic is a characteristic of human minds,there is no necessity that nature should follow the rules of logic."

I agree with you excluding this quotation, implying that mind does not belong to nature. The problem is that if we knew the structure of reality it will be more basic (more initial) than arithmetics and the math spaces we use in the current theories. This structure will follow the simple logic of existence that brings everything to life. It exists and should be found as it is attempted in Savov's theory of interaction. Theory based on the revealed structure of reality will stand like a math theorem. Eugene Savov's theory of interaction shows that self-similarity makes nature accessible to mind.

Pete

06-30-03, 12:17 AM

For all interested in science philosophy, I highly recommend

Chalmers, A F 1982, What is this thing called Science, UQ Press, Brisbane.

You should read it, James, it will enthrall and infuriate you!

Dr Chalmers's homepage:
http://www.usyd.edu.au/su/hps/staff/alan.html

James R

06-30-03, 01:13 AM

I have a copy sitting on my shelf, Pete. A good read.

Mark

09-26-03, 06:51 PM

Originally posted by James R
This thread is a brief summary of what I believe are the primary differences between Science and Pseudoscience...

5. Is it well delineated?

....

this is a useful list and these really are important issues
redundancy is jusfiable for clarity and emphasis
many of the 8 questions are around the issue of testability (does it make predictions, is it falsifiable, is there evidence, does it
fit reality)

more can be said about 5. delineation: maybe the main gist of this is that
if a theory has several versions there should be some natural reason to exclude all but one version:
it cant be too mushy and amoeba-like, if it is going to be considered scientific

but here's another aspect of point 5 which the original post did not mention----if it is a scientific theory, a physical model should delineate its range of applicability.
it not only should predict numbers
it should you in what situations or at what scale its numbers are reliable

I dont suppose that these are hard-and-fast rules, there is probably some tolerance and wiggle-room for new theories----theories in development---which dont yet satisfy all the criteria. And there is an element of subjective judgement: are the developers making an honest good-faith effort to get the theory in shape to make predictions, and if it proves not amenable to making predictions, or predicts the wrong numbers, will they frankly chuck it on the scrap-pile (or keep on fudging)

Mark

09-26-03, 07:16 PM

Peter Woit's website at Columbia where he teaches QFT

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/

His article published in American Scientist, April last year

"Is String Theory Even Wrong?"
http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/18638

A recent paper by a couple of prominent string theorists
Tom Banks and Mike Dine (and someone else who is a new name to me)

http://arxiv.org/hep-th/0309170

"Is There a String Theory Landscape?"

An earlier critical review of the field by Woit, a mathematical physicist at Columbia:

http://arxiv.org/physics/0102051

"String Theory: an Evaluation"

Another recent article by Tom Banks:

"A Critique of Pure String Theory"

http://arxiv.org/hep-th/0306074

An article by Thomas Larsson:

"Symmetries of Everything"

http://arxiv.org/math-ph/0103013

There are quite a few articles and posts that have this common theme that after being worked on for 18 years string theory still does not predict numbers----is still not testable---exists in a plethora of different forms all seemingly at odds with reality in one way or another. Thus there is some soul-searching as well as some shrill voices denying anything is wrong.

This sticky that raises the issue of what is a scientific theory as compared with pseudoscientific is a great place to test this out. String theory is a prime example of a borderline pseudoscientific case where (as the articles show) a falsifiable well-delineated theory appears not to be forthcoming.

Probably the clearest statement of this is Peter Woit's American Scientist article, and the email reactions to it posted at his website---that I gave the url for earlier

MacM was the one, I think, who brought up stringtheory as an illuminating example to be studied in terms of these 8 questions James R listed. Really relevant!

NileQueen

10-15-03, 11:01 PM

chroot Don't worry, I don't plan on discussing any science here anymore. I still read this forum now and again for laughs.

Hi Warren,

Why aren't you discussing science here anymore (I am not a regular so haven't really followed that), and are you discussing science somewhere else?

lethe

10-16-03, 01:22 AM

Originally posted by NileQueen
chroot

Hi Warren,

Why aren't you discussing science here anymore (I am not a regular so haven't really followed that), and are you discussing science somewhere else?

chroot took off for physicsforums.com. see this thread (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=17506) and this one (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=19163)

Quantum Quack

10-26-03, 02:53 AM

I agree to the policy in the context that it is made in.

However, your point of repeatablility of the experiments has a little concern to me in that because the nature of time is duch that no moment can actually be repeated, and any experiment that relies of repeating a moment in time is doomed to fail.

I think this may apply when trying to prove very small differences in the quanta. AS time passes the ability to repeat using the same parrameters begins to fail.

Just a point I thought I would mention

TIME02112

04-08-04, 11:53 AM

*Scientific claims (in spite of their obvious flaws) have also been known to be made to appear genuine, often for ulterior motives such as monetary gain, political or ideological purposes, or to gain personal fame for their proponent(s).

Often when the discoveries within scientific claims of the past were found to contain a myriad of flaws and thus proven inplausable on numerous counts, when they were brought to the attention of the scientific communities on many occasions with heated debate, regardless of the concensus agreement findings and observations of these historical debacles, the incorrect versions of these scientific claims were never corrected and thus remain today viewed by many who are misinformed and continue to share a misinformed consensus that these flaws are still correct, What's wrong with this picture?

[QUOTE=James R]This thread is a brief summary of what I believe are the primary differences between Science and Pseudoscience. I hope that this will help people draw the line for themselves when they are confronted with new ideas on this forum and elsewhere.

First, a couple of brief definitions, courtesy of Michael Shermer:

Science: A set of methods designed to describe and interpret observed or inferred phenomena … aimed at building a testable body of knowledge open to rejection or confirmation.
Psuedoscience: Claims presented in such a way that they appear scientific even though they lack supporting evidence and plausibility.

Already, these definitions suggest some things to look for in evaluating claims. Scientific claims should be testable and open to rejection by contrary evidence. *Pseudoscientific claims are made to appear scientific, often for ulterior motives such as monetary gain, political or ideological purposes, or to gain personal fame for their proponent(s).

invert_nexus

04-08-04, 02:24 PM

I am a newbie here, this is my first post. I found this site just a couple of days ago, and since then, I've been browsing here and there and seeing what there is to see. I've noticed a number of threads, as have many of you i'm sure, whose authors don't really seem to understand what science is. I am not a scientist, merely a scientifically minded person, largely self-educated, so am not an expert on exactly what science is. But isn't the main prerequisite the use of scientific method? This thread which attempts to elucidate the difference between science and pseudoscience doesn't define the scientific method, unless I missed it and I apologize if I did. It's been a while since high school science class, so I can't fully define the scientific method, claim, test, hypotheses, test, etc, but I am sure that others here do know it by heart. I think it should be listed, and maybe in a new thread or in an edit to the first post of this thread so as not to bury it amid a hundred other posts.
The previous post mentions methods (plural) in it's definition of science. Are there other methods other than what I always thought of as THE scientific method? Please educate me.

invert_nexus

04-08-04, 02:29 PM

Also, shouldn't this thread exist in every science forum? Or is it only physics and math where you can differentiate between science and pseudoscience?

Sorry about the double post.

James R

04-09-04, 11:26 PM

Welcome to sciforums, invert_nexus.

What is commonly referred to as "THE scientific method" is more accurately a collection of attitudes and ways of approaching problems. There is no single recipe that somebody needs to follow in order to be doing science. For this reason, it is somewhat difficult to say exactly what the scientific method is. In this thread, I hope I've got at that a little by saying what it is not.

Different moderators control different sub-forums here, so while this thread could be carried over to other sciences forums, the other mods have decided in their wisdom not to do so.

Having said that, it does seem to me that physics attracts more than its fair share of pseudoscientists for some reason.

Quantum Quack

04-09-04, 11:48 PM

James I guess the reason why so many pseudo's are attracted to physics is that there are so many unanswered questions, therefore so many "unquestioned answers" ( I had to write that)
But as invert_nexus has said I to believe that the rules that are commonly accepted by universities and R & D ordganisations regards to the scientific method should be more readilly displayed than they are.....

Also a thread on what constitutes quality discussion could also do with a showing....

larryhat

04-26-04, 02:00 AM

Hi guys:

How about something off the wall like Ball Lightning?
There are lots of anecdotal reports, some pretty good,
but it seems to be untestable so far. I believe there
were some Russian experiments trying to reproduce it
electrically BTW. If untestable, I presume that BL
sits on the borders of science just like String Theory,
pending imaginative new tests of experiments.

I would not call that pseudo-science. Maybe fringe
science is a better term.

best - Larry

James R

04-26-04, 02:43 AM

larryhat

04-26-04, 03:17 AM

" If you said that perhaps ball lightning exists and it might be explained using
a particular physical theory, that would put you on one side of the line.
If, on the other hand, you claimed that ball lightning is really the spirits of
dead people manifesting themselves as glowing balls, then you would most
likely be on the other side of the line. "

- - - -

Hello James R:

No disagreement on that. I was thinking of some so-far undetermined
physical phenomenon. Conventional theories don't seem to have a
good handle on it yet. I would never suggest spiritualism.
My point is simply that BL is not convincingly repeatable in the
laboratory. Theories are inconsistent, controversial or simply
lacking.

I don't think its fair to call BL 'pseudo-science', when fringe-science
is less inflammatory and hopefully more accurate. If there is some
good solution to the BL mystery, I'd love to hear of it. -Larry

RDT2

05-04-04, 09:14 AM

I guess it would depend what you were asserting about ball lightning.

If you said that perhaps ball lightning exists and it might be explained using a particular physical theory, that would put you on one side of the line. If, on the other hand, you claimed that ball lightning is really the spirits of dead people manifesting themselves as glowing balls, then you would most likely be on the other side of the line.

http://www.mech.gla.ac.uk/~rthomson/graphics/smiley_haha.gif

I'm not sure I'd agree that physics has more unanswered questions than say, biology or philosophy but it may attract more pseudoscience because much of it, even now well-accepted stuff, is so counterintuitive.

invert_nexus

05-07-04, 11:47 PM

I was just watching Penn and Tellers Bullshit! There is a statement made by a theologist.

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

How's that for pseudoscience?

Persol

05-07-04, 11:53 PM

Well, he's right. Just because we can't find it doesn't mean it isn't there. But that also doesn't mean we should take someone else's word for it.

invert_nexus

05-08-04, 12:05 AM

Yeah, I suppose you're right. Penn and Teller are just so damn convincing that it overwhelmed my sensibilities.

I guess where pseudoscience comes in is when you attempt to use this logic to prove something. So, I guess using the phrase in the context above could be considered pseudoscience in a way. I feel so dirty. :p

PhysMachine

05-08-04, 01:01 PM

I would contend that pseudoscience comes in when you don't consider experimental data and just make thought arguements, like how the Greeks carried out science.

Persol

05-08-04, 01:02 PM

Nah... thought arguments are fine too. It's the ignorance of existing evidence and the lack of logic that is a problem.

HOWARDSTERN

07-10-04, 06:18 AM

James R,

Hey man, are you JREF?http://www.randi.org/images/photos/commentary.jpg Cause if you arte thou Mazing Andi, then you owe me a million bucks!

James R

07-11-04, 12:09 AM

No, I'm not James Randi. But I'm fairly sure he doesn't owe you anything. Chances are you never submitted a proper application for the million dollar prize.

paradigm

07-12-04, 08:36 AM

I can't offer an alternative physics theory but I can offer an alternative physics paradigm that debunks the bizarre interpretations of the present physics paradigm.
See Debunking Physics and Discovering the Ultimate Paradigm of Science at http://paradigm.blogharbor.com

hyperdog

07-14-04, 05:44 PM

Amen. And while we're at it, let's debunk the bizarre notion that the earth is round (http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/fe-scidi.htm).

After all, if it seems bizarre to me, then it can't possibly be true. Intelligent people recognize this principle as the Second Law of Hyperdog.

HOWARDSTERN

07-17-04, 04:40 AM

No, I'm not James Randi. But I'm fairly sure he doesn't owe you anything. Chances are you never submitted a proper application for the million dollar prize.

Now I know it's you ! ! ! ! !http://www.sciforums.com/images/smilies/mad.gif You sent me the same email reply four years ago ! ! !!http://www.sciforums.com/images/smilies/mad.gif

kriminal99

08-08-04, 11:15 AM

I dont have a problem with all this stuff in relation to weather something is "science" or not. But who cares if it is science? This really only concerns someone who is getting ready to perform the actual experiments or something.

If something is not testable, or not disprovable, its not wrong or not unuseful or not uninteresting. How many people claiming things like "We have capacity for genetic memory because its the only thing that makes sense logically" try and claim it has been "scientifically proven". Most of these types of arguments are based on logical reasoning and noone cares if it has been scientifically proven or not.

Truth be told the concept of science itself is rediculous because most experiments are not directly of what the theory trying to be proven concerns. They experiments usually are about something else and then reasoning is used to link the experiment to the theory. That means the so called science has actually entered the realm of logic and reasoning.

Also the argument of onus of proof resting with the challenger to build a body of knowledge is highly flawed. It pretty much requires that no one was ever wrong or used flawed reasoning to come up with what is so far commonly accepted. It doesn't do any good that your set of beliefs about the world is getting bigger and bigger if they are all wrong. In truth this argument seems to be based on the fact that there are more people that believe the challenged idea, they think they are right and they don't like to be told they are wrong. Not exactly a valid reason to say the other person has to prove it, in truth this is just the phds being equally as immature as an ignorant person who refuses to even consider the commonly accepted ideas.

geistkiesel

03-19-05, 05:31 PM

And finally, I still see a problem of using the pseudo-science as a repository for new concepts, since it primarily contains material clearly not sceintific in nature. - i.e. Alien Abduction. If pseudo-science bore the lable as you defined it I would not have a concern posting there but that is not the case. pseudo-sceince is considered totally wacky and devoid of any possible chance of becoming scientific fact. Therein lies the difference in having a "Development Forum".

MacM , what is not scientific about Alien Abduction? Is it because, "since it primarily contains material clearly not sceintific"

You do recognize that if the claims were truthful and accurate, to a significant degree, that ignoring the issues of thec laims could prove disastrous to an awful lot of people? So you would provide no money for research into Alien Abduction and perhaps Animal and Cattle Mutilation, Roswell (where I worked for our uncle for a spell)? Don't you have any curiosity? I am making much of your statement, and p'haps I doth protest too much. but what the hey, this is Sciforums at its best.

Of all the points you have brought out re the demise of SRT, the most basic, recioprocity, etc, you claim is "scientific"? Is this a correct reading.?

Geistkiesel.

geistkiesel

03-19-05, 06:20 PM

James R, I wonder how Geistkiesel would fare on this forum had he raised the issue oif "string Theory" , "Nonlocal forces" and 'interference amplitude" to name but three. topics? I am not assuming I would be 86's but certainly the chargs of "kook" etc would be frequent. This is more a guess on reactions.

Basically your set of pseudo science rules seems somewhat restricting and do not offer that much to progress. To assign duities and obligations to a discourse that is subject to interpretation and rejection, a challenger has the onus to provide the proof.(If I am on track here.) In general you may be correct, but it would be choking to a procress to(too) so rigidly restrictive that filling out the forms becomes tyhe mowst simportatnt matter under discussion, that is the "procedure for arriving at the the truth". For isntance, on more than one occasion I have been charged to demonstrate proof of "gedanken" experiments fallibility when the contrary is widekly accepted. Other screams are directed at submitting mathematical proofs of the assertions when the mathematics would just get in the way. Or the most shrill comes from, those making general claims of "thousands of supporting experiments . . .".

I am going somewhere with this which is to say that many of those acting as I've described might qualigfy by a strict reading of your words to demand what they demand from an innocvent "kook"..

I recognize your post was directed at pseudopscience and pseudeo-scientists and not at those supporting a widely acceopted scientific point of view with a very minimum of scientific argument and inpute. It seems that "kook" is reserved for those assau8lting the ramparts of established dogma. What I cannot fathom is the intensity in which the many, most, established "prevailers" haven't the slightest interest in even exploring the matter of a challenge objectively and with true discourse and conscioous communication. The reaction is 'defend at the first whiff of some thing smelling different' with massive coordinaqted attacks. When some begin to circle the wagons with knee jerk sincerity me thinks the stability level of the topic as measured by the degreee of confidence in what is being defended is a clue to dogmatic weaknesses.

Afterall , who challenges their graduate advisors anyway?.

I didn't go to medical school because I didn't think I would have aenough payshunze..

Geistkiesel.

Maddad

03-20-05, 11:28 PM

[indent] MacM , what is not scientific about Alien Abduction?It is not reproducible and not testable (disprovable).

zanket

05-31-07, 02:38 AM

4. Who has the onus of proof?

In science, the onus of proof regarding a claim is on the claimant. If I say that relativity is wrong, it is up to me to support my arguments. If I claim to have invented a water-driven engine, it is up to me to demonstrate a working model. In contrast, pseudoscientists always say "Prove me wrong." They claim the moon is made of green cheese and expect somebody else to prove it isn't so. Science expects them to produce a sample of moon cheese or other evidence which supports their claim.
I'd add to this one, which is often abused on other forums. Even after the water-driven engine is demonstrated, opponents will not accept that the onus of proof is then on them to prove that what was demonstrated has a problem. The onus of proof is on the claimant only until they prove their claim, and then it switches to the opponent to refute the proof.

5. Is it well delineated?

Most advances in science have implications in a rather narrow field, though there are a few exceptions. In contrast, almost invariably, pseudoscientific theories will claim to revolutionise at least one major field of study, such as cosmology or evolution. Psuedoscientists always attack the most established and high-profile physical theories - relativity, quantum mechanics, evolution. They never attempt to revise one small area, such as providing a new measurement of the half-life of plutonium.
I'd remove this point just for the irony that one of the "exceptions" is relativity. There should be no problem suggested with thinking big, no matter how slim the odds of validity may seem in that case.

CANGAS

06-03-07, 01:23 AM

URI

06-03-07, 02:09 AM

Ok, what is real, absolute truth James R ?

It is not by chance that science is populated by things called THEORIES

Yes nothing is known to be absolutely true, not even existence.

Is atomic theory true ?
Gravity ?
oh the list is endless.

What we do in science is CONSTRUCT the most plausible explanation/interpretation of observations (that may or may not be repeatable) and try to tie them into our MENTAL FANTASY framework so we gain an understanding and in some cases produce devices that aid us.

Now what makes science science is integration of these fantasy explanations into a total fantasy framework. But all of it may be totally false; the history of science will attest to that.

Pseudo-science IMO, has no testable "facts"; it is an extension of accepted theory into an arena of prediction based upon "future" understandings. However pseudo-science is and has shown to have a certain legitimacy in science as most sciFi concepts do get realised in fact at some time in history.
Pseudo-science actually stimulates discussion, innovation and is a device to open the mind to all possibilities. A closed mind in science is not only useless for scientific investigation, it is downright ANTI_SCIENCE.

"all science is indistinguishable from magic" and yet "all science is wrong"

Now if you wish people to stick to "text book" science then the future and even the present is totally lost.

Discussion is what makes science progressive and even relevant, and through discussion, not only does understanding grow, but hidden "facts" may be revealed to anyone interested.

It is the accumulation of ALL facts that support a theory, and hidden facts may well force a theory change.

So James R you wish to stifle debate, cut discussion to "what you know".

Sorry lad, this is so childish that it beggers belief... but lad you have the majority on side... and thus science dies on the Internet.

Look to all the science forums, rename them wiki !

Print it all out and keep it for all time.

Totally idiotic

So what is the use of a science forum that only can post photocopies of photocopies of photocopies....

If all this attitude has stemmed from you, mister "super-moderator" James R, then lad, you have much to answer for.

PATHETIC.

Pete

06-03-07, 07:52 AM

In plainer language, for your benefit, Pete plainly posted the statement, recorded on my hard drive, that momentum is very often failed to be conserved and we need not worry about it.
Rubbish. Show your evidence.

Vern

06-03-07, 05:59 PM

James R

I agree with your criteria. But, Pseudo or no, I love to see it.

Billy T

06-03-07, 07:12 PM

Especially for Pete:

I wonder which of James criteria you think Andrew is violating in his thread about seven reasons for rejecting QM?
Certainly he is violating #5 but James begins that with "most" and first sentence ends by acknowledging that there are exceptions.

Please take the most serious violation only and if you can cite by post numbers where Andrew is violating the number (of Jame's) post you selected as "the worst," I may agree with you or not. I have still not read all Andrew has to say or even tried hard to understand some of what I have read. I did challenge one point he made which I believe was wrong in one of my posts (and offered a possible reason why some lines are mainly seen in emission not in absorption, if that is in fact as true as Andrew implied)

I tend to be very tolerant in accepting FOR DISCUSSION something you are quite convenced is "pseudo-science" I admit. I am just asking for more specific evidence that Andrew's thread is properly placed in the pseudo-science group.

Pete

06-03-07, 09:59 PM

Hi Billy,
Number 7. I do not think that Andrew is being realistic in his assessment of his own understanding of quantum physics. I think that he has not adequately established that what he perceives as contradictions in quantum physics are actually problems.

I admit that I am not completely satisfied that the pseudoscience forum is the best place for the thread... but in its current form, I think that it is more suited to that forum than this one.

The ideas in the thread are worth discussing... but if they are in this forum, they must be discussed in a scientific way. I think that Andrew is willing to do that, but I think that the thread's initial setup makes it very difficult for him to do so in that context.

The discussion could return to this forum in a few ways:
The individual ideas could be posted to individual threads. I personally would like to see the alleged contradictions discussed... it would give me a chance to learn something!

Or... perhaps a flag to indicate that the thread is about an "Against the mainstream" idea, like the "Alpha" flag. James brought up the idea of an "Against the Mainstream" forum a while ago, but it was turned down. I think the prevailing opinion was that the "Pseudoscience" forum was the proper place for that kind of discussion. But... maybe not.

Hmm...
I would be willing to have the thread brought back with a change of title. Something like "Against the mainstream: Pulsing electrons".

I'll open a new thread to discuss this more.

CANGAS

06-05-07, 02:09 AM

My recent post was provided to you under the condition of my elevated level of excitement due to your (generically speaking) unfairly prejudicial treatment of my thread "Mass Doesen't Change With Speed Debunked".

I want you(all) to know in my plainly stated terms, what my opinion is regarding your physics forum. Therefore I am repeating my communication, as if one repetition would have any chance of being understood by you(all).

In my aforesaid thread I steadfastly supported the 400 year old concept of conservation of momentum.

Do you(all) consider the conservation of momentum to be Psuedoscience?

In the duration of the thread, Tom2 and Pete repeatedly stated that momentum is not conserved in physics in general, and is especially not conserved in Special Relativity, and the lack of conservation of momentum is nothing to be concerned about.

Do you(all) consider the FAILURE of conservation of momentum to be mainstream, Standard Model, non-crackpot physics?

According to your implied agreement with the statements of Tom2 and Pete, and your implied agreement with the actions of Pete, you(all) believe that CONSERVATION OF MOMENTUM IS PSUEDOSCIENCE.

And you(all) believe that FAILURE OF CONSERVATION OF MOMENTUM IS GOOD PHYSICS.

Oh, yes, I said that I would give my opinion of this physics forum.

Any physics forum that has upheld the failure of conservation of momentum, as you have recently done, is as worthless as a pile of used peanut butter.

Pete

06-05-07, 02:26 AM

BenTheMan

06-05-07, 03:36 PM

CANGAS---you seem to confuse momentum and four-momentum. The vector (with three components) momentum in classical mechanics may not be conserved at large center of mass energies. The (Lorentz Invariant) four-vector p^{\mu} IS always conserved in collisions.

Pete

06-07-07, 05:10 AM

Some posts moved to a new thread.
Keep it on topic, people.

Billy T

06-07-07, 04:02 PM

...I do not think that Andrew is being realistic in his assessment of his own understanding of quantum physics. I think that he has not adequately established that what he perceives as contradictions in quantum physics are actually problems. ...
The discussion could return to this forum in a few ways:
The individual ideas could be posted to individual threads. I personally would like to see the alleged contradictions discussed... it would give me a chance to learn something!...
I'll open a new thread to discuss this more.I too think it would be wise to have separate thread on each "error" Andrew sees in Std. QM POV.

I encourage him to pick one "error" he thinks is most obviously an error and start showing why he feels that is an error.

The only one I commented on was a question of facts. He said something like that some spectral lines were only seen in emission. I explained that in cold gas etc. the population of the lower level or "absorbing state" could be very low and this might be true. For example, Helium was discovered due to the absorption lines in the solar spectrum. If I recall correctly the ionization potential of He is about 24ev. Thus, a transition from the lowest excited state to the ground state must produce a much more than energetic photon than can pass thur the atmosphere. (too lazy to look all this up, but quite sure it must be very harsh UV) Hence All of these He or "Franhoffer absorption lines" are of the type Andrew says does not exist.

This statement of his was such a glaring error, that I posted about it earlier. They are present because the surface of the sun is not a "cold gas" and the excited but lower states of the transition are populated. Andrew, IMHO, simply does not understand why absorption lines are indeed not seen as much as in emission. (Even from hot gas source. The photon to be absorbed must arrive while the lower state is populated. It may be occasionally populated but rapidly decays by the radiation or emission line, but rarely is boosted to even higher excited state prior to emitting a photon (by transition to a lower state).
--------------------------------------
Have you ever read my essay on How free will MAY be possible/ consistent with physics? If yes, is it, IYV, science or pseudo-science? It is certainly in strong conflict with the main stream of cognitive science. If no, and you have time to read six pages, here is a link to it:

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1294496&postcount=52

URI

06-07-07, 10:33 PM

>>> Pseudoscientific claims are made to appear scientific, often for ulterior motives such as monetary gain, political or ideological purposes, or to gain personal fame for their proponent(s). >>> James R

As usual, ulterior motives are invoked as a reason why questions are asked.

Questions are asked by scientists because they love science, they want to turn all rocks, they wish to explore every possibility and also explore why proposed possibilities are unsound.

Obviously anyone who defines motives for question asking (or the proposing of alternatives) as an ulterior motive to gain fame or bring down the establishment is really not a scientist, but one very sick political/religious bunny.

Sorry I will never stoop to insane directives of dictators, my only god is reality.

IMO the moderators of this forum have no idea just what science really is.

Textbooks were yesterday, discussion is today.

If you wish to maintain a yesterday forum... backslappingly great, this is your place !

If you wish to explore today's science then I am afraid you will have to go somewhere else. This is not the place for that because the mods squash discussion.

omegafour.com

CANGAS

06-08-07, 12:47 AM

CANGAS, you appear to be under some misconception.

Tom2 never said that momentum is not conserved.
I never said that momentum is not conserved.

We all agree that momentum is conserved.

I don't know why you keep saying otherwise. :confused:

Because I read your statements on my monitor and recorded them on my hard drive.

When you (all) deny that you (all) made the statements, you (all) prove yourselves to be either pathological liars or to be schizophrenic.

Or, according to my hard drive, both.

Pete

06-08-07, 12:49 AM

Because I read your statements on my monitor and recorded them on my hard drive.
And yet you don't simply produce the alleged statements... understandable, since they don't exist except in your imagination.

CANGAS

06-08-07, 02:19 AM

And yet you don't simply produce the alleged statements... understandable, since they don't exist except in your imagination.
My hard drive, and my remote archive drives, and the Sciforums pages recorded on them, are completely real.

Your absurd posts stating that momentum is not conserved, and it is nothing to worry about, are perfectly real.

zanket

06-08-07, 02:58 AM

>>> Pseudoscientific claims are made to appear scientific, often for ulterior motives such as monetary gain, political or ideological purposes, or to gain personal fame for their proponent(s). >>> James R

As usual, ulterior motives are invoked as a reason why questions are asked.

Questions are asked by scientists because they love science, they want to turn all rocks, they wish to explore every possibility and also explore why proposed possibilities are unsound.
I agree with this sentiment. No doubt some people do make claims for ulterior (nonscientific) motives, but to suggest it as a way of determining whether a claim is pseudoscience is likely for an ulterior motive of its own: to throw the babies out with the bath water. I think the "Science and Pseudoscience" list is skewed toward those who wish to censor anything they don't like. I think the list does not belong on sciforums in its current form. It gives the impression that sciforums is closed minded.

Billy T

06-08-07, 08:23 AM

What part of "my hard drive" is it that you are having the most trouble understanding? My hard drive, and my remote archive drives, and the Sciforums pages recorded on them, are completely real.

Your absurd posts stating that momentum is not conserved, and it is nothing to worry about, are perfectly real...Cangas, I strongly doubt that pete would ever state what you claim he did (Except by accident such as omitting "not" etc)

I can not inspect your hard drive, and it is entirely possible for you to place any text you like there. If you do not simply tell the post where Pete made these statements, what am I to conclude?

It is certainly possible for anyone to remove their own post and as monitor Pete can probably alter others, but any statement to effect that momentum is not conserved would prompt many others to comment on it trying to correct it. I certainly would have if I had read it. I do not recall any case of my correcting Pete, but have corrected James R several times, (Only once a serious error, others were only statements excessively general, without adequate qualification.) I am sure you know for personnel experience I am quick to correct any errors I see. I also have been in need of correction several times, once extremely seriously (I thought the E and M part of EM wave were 90 degrees out of phase - that one collapsing gave rise to the other - a very false idea.)

Even if the post no longer exist, tell where it was, what time it was, etc. and I will go there to see what was going on in that thread around that time.