How to recognise pseudoscience

how does this correspond to the macro world ?

of course the micro world builds the macro world

but once a galaxy , sun , planet etc become its a whole differnet ball game as compared to the micro world

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

. . . at the point of formation of mass perhaps? . . . initiation of gravity force.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

at the point where the subatomic world congeals to an element

because the subatomic is not free to do as its nature is capable , it has become ordered

therefore the mass increases , hence less space

 

not switches off persay but the subatomic world has less influence

when the the subatomic world creates a mass and volume greater than its self

hydrogen to begin with

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Thank you James R for this post.
Wish i had found it earlier, but now that i did a copy&paste of it resides on my desktop.

 

I'm glad Engell79 made his post because I hadn't noticed this thread before and it was *very* interesting. The OP was well-planned and well-presented.

Something that I particularly enjoyed was seeing how it brought out all the cranks from under their rocks in an attempt to justify the unjustifiable.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

This thread should be made a sticky-thread.

 

I agree - only purge the responses since most of them were whinning pseudoscientific types.

 

Bad science can be spotted a mile away, just look for the name Einstein.

 

The one I've underlined rang a bell (well, others did too, but let's look at that one first) .. Ahh, here it is ..

Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited, whereas imagination embraces the entire world, stimulating progress, giving birth to evolution. It is, strictly speaking, a real factor in scientific research.

Can you guess it's author ?

 

Sure - that was old Albert E. (as in E=mc^s) himself.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

But I'm also certain that he was aware of the limitations involved. Pink unicorns, or other fantasies, would not get you very far.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Notice that the author of that quote, Einstein, doesn't say imagination is a replacement for knowledge. Imagination without knowledge is incapable of utility and knowledge without imagination is incapable of novelty. If imagination without knowledge did good science then we'd not distinguish between artists and scientists, would we? At the same time I interview dozens of PhDs in maths and physics a year and I'd say that 95% of them have let their general mathematics ability atrophy during their PhD due to the "I must know everything about my corner of maths, never mind anything else" mentality which is prevalent and even fewer can use their knowledge in imaginative ways to solve real world problems.

That Einstein quote is used as an excuse for people who don't know any science, to convince people (themselves mostly) their ignorance is okay. It isn't.

 

Yes, a search on "Einstein" will lead you many pseudoscience posts, since he's one of the few prominent scientists they can name. Much less demonstrate a working knowledge of even the most fundamental concepts involved:

 

What category was Einstein's theory in before it was generally accepted, if not pseudoscience? Looks to me like he never made it out of those ranks.

 

He was in the category of the Annalen der Physik which led him to the category of the Nobel Prize. Before his first publication he was in the category of child prodigy, having tackled the subject of Über die Untersuchung des Ätherzustandes im magnetischen Felde (On the Investigation of the State of the Ether in a Magnetic Field) when he was a mere 16 years old. This follows James Clerk Maxwell, in the category of "founder of electromagnetics", who also distinguished himself in the category of child prodigy (but who unfortunately died before Alfred Nobel created his famous prizes for achievement).

By contrast, the typical pseudoscientist can't even solve the math and science questions designed for 16 yr olds today. If it weren't for the Nobel Prize, they probably would never have heard of Einstein. They certainly would have no idea why the photoelectric effect was something worth understanding.

But of course an average 16 yr old would feel humbled by the accomplishments of brilliant thinkers like Einstein. They would even be able to peg the odd fellow student who might be on the wrong track by noting:

That's seems to be where pseudoscience has its roots. Something went wrong in their youth. They never got anywhere with math and science, and they've apparently been damaged by the failure. Pseudoscience is probably rooted in self-loathing, covered in denial and a pretense of mastering the thing they failed long ago.

 

The OP was a well written and funny essay (Compilation of Essays) on the lunacy that pervades in pseudoscience topics.

My only objection would be that this catch-all basin for garbage science must also contend with real science from time to time.

History is fluent with scientists banished, killed, mocked when they unlocked a new scientific discovery. I suppose; there could be no enlightened age when valid new science is immediately recognized. It is sad that new science will again spring forth from pseudoscience and that it was forced to prove its worth among'st sneers.

The OP was just jest. Well Done.