How to recognise pseudoscience

Since perception is in fact relative (unlike motion), my take on the matter is that if it isn't 100% correct it's wrong. Call it what you want. Newton was wrong. Einstein was wrong. I am 100% correct. There is only one percentage in which the accuracy of absolute motion has ever been, and that's 100%. Any tolerance over the course of a time period, oh, let's just say 13.7 billion years would leave one baffled beyond your wildest imagination. Recorded history is 100% exact. Your predictions may vary.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

There is a difference between an as yet untested scientific model and pseudoscience. A model which makes predictions, whose derivation is methodical and whose predictions are consistent with experiments for phenomena we have already examined is sound science, it is in the category of 'hypothesis' rather than 'theory'. Signs of pseudoscience are a lack of sound methodical derivation from initial postulates and/or the lack of quantitative predictions in the domain it is claiming to be relevant to. General relativity was published in 1915 and in that publication it was demonstrated how GR could explain otherwise unexplained phenomena, like the precession of Mercury, and several predictions about as yet unexamined phenomena, namely light deflection and gravitational redshifting. As time went on technology allowed us to make tests of those predictions and they were validated. That is entirely consistent with the scientific method. You wish to claim relativity is pseudoscience but since it meets all necessary conditions to be scientific you are either just being plain dishonest or you're working with a different meaning to the term 'scientific'.

On the other hand your claims are pseudoscience. You assert things about reality with no evidence, you can provide no quantitative model of real world phenomena and you're willing to misrepresent the mainstream model you're attempting to supplant.

Yes Newton was wrong, demonstrably so. Does that mean he engaged in pseudoscience when he developed his gravitational models? No, it doesn't. He did experiments/observations, he constructed models, worked out their predictions, compared them with experiments and did this until he hit upon a model which was completely consistent with all of the observations he had made. The fact that down the line experiments were done which were contradicting of his model doesn't change that. Likewise for Einstein, except in his case we've yet to do the experiments which show him to be wrong.

A statement for which you have no evidence. You have no experimental data showing Einstein wrong and you have no predictive model which can describe the data we do have. You are engaging in pseudoscience.

There is a difference between someone doing scientific work which is not immediately accepted and someone doing pseudoscience. Consider someone like Farsight. He provides no working models, have no experience with the phenomena he talks about and repeatedly ignores corrections to his claims about the mainstream or reality. But even if his arm waving waffle is accurate and reality works as he claims he'll never have his ideas move into the mainstream community if he continues with this approach.

Why? Because the mainstream requires evidence, quantitative non-arbitrary models and honesty. Let's suppose for a moment the world works as Farsight claims. Eventually experimental data will come to light which contradicts current mainstream models. More and more people will start looking into these things, collecting lots of data and putting forth quantitative hypotheses to model the world in a new way to account for the new data. Eventually someone will hit on a quantitative model which does this and it will replace the now disproven mainstream model. As people work on it they will develop a qualitative understanding of the quantitative stuff and eventually construct descriptions which align with what Farsight is saying now. Does this mean Farsight's claims aren't pseudoscience? No, Farsight's claims remain pseudoscience due to the aforementioned lack of necessary things. So did this pseudoscience become science? No, what replaced the mainstream model was a quantitative model based on experimental data and which is consistent with all relevant observed phenomena. The only thing which replaces evidence based predictive models is evidence based predictive models. This is why, even if it transpires the wordy arm waving of some hack are accurate, the hack is doing pseudoscience if they cannot meet the necessary standards. If Farsight is right about how the universe works and that some day his view of things will be taught in universities it won't be him getting a Nobel Prize (or 4, which is what he thinks he deserves), it'll be the person(s) who first found experimental data which falsified the mainstream model of the day. It'll be the person(s) who construct a new quantitative model consistent with the new data, as well as the old, which will replace the falsified mainstream model of the day.

The only thing which replaces science is more science.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

AN, Put yourself in my shoes and tell me what you would do. I am not a scientist, as you know. I am a mechanically minded individual that had extensive professional education and training in mechanical theory, principles, and applications for over 20 years. I used to teach mechanics. Only through mechanics do I know about physics. I never took a physics class in my life. I never conducted a formal experiment in my life. I barely made it through high school. I served 20 years in the Army as a Motor Sergeant and instructor.

I know I am right. I am not qualified to formally present my claims. So I do what I know best, come on a science board and hope that I can teach my theory to other people in hopes that someone like youself will run the numbers, get interested, and help me, or at least carry the idea forward in a formal way.

I do not claim to know physics or math, I just claim to have the golden ticket!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If you don't know physics or math, how could you know you're right?

 

I know just enough to understand my theory. I understand motion and how to measure it properly.

 

@ Motor Daddy,
you should learn from the mistakes of others, life is too short to make them all yourself.

 

If everyone thought that way there would be no evolution.

 

What completely unfounded arrogance. Luckily you are too blind to realize that you are a laughing stock or you might be embarrased.

 

I'll have the last laugh.

 

Man in black: Well if there can be no arrangement, then we are at an impasse.
Vizzini: I'm afraid so. I can't compete with you physically, and you're no match for my brains.
Man in black: You're that smart?
Vizzini: Let me put it this way: have you ever heard of Plato, Aristotle, Socrates?
Man in black: Yes.
Vizzini: Morons.

. . . . .

Man In Black: You've made your decision then?
Vizzini: Not remotely. Because Iocane comes from Australia, as everyone knows, and Australia is entirely peopled with criminals, and criminals are used to having people not trust them, as you are not trusted by me, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you.
Man In Black: Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.
Vizzini: WAIT TILL I GET GOING! Where was I?

. . . . .

Man In Black: What's so funny?
Vizzini: I'll tell you in a minute. First, let's drink. Me from my glass, Picks up glass. and you from yours. (They drink.)
Man In Black: You guessed wrong.
Vizzini: You only think I guessed wrong! That's what's so funny! I switched glasses when your back was turned! Ha ha! You fool! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders! The most famous is never get involved in a land war in Asia, but only slightly less well known is this: never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line!! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!! Ha ha ha-- (Stops suddenly and falls over dead.)

 

Since mechanics is all you know, you think mechanics is all there is, and so that's all your theory is. Your understanding of reality is limited by what you don't know.

What I don't understand is why you are unable to learn anything new. You may never have taken a physics class in your life, but posting on these science forums has certainly exposed you to that which you don't know.

 

I have a very strong filter of what I allow as fact into my brain. If I can't justify it it can't go in there. I have to understand every aspect of it and completely understand how it works before it's accepted into the treasure chest!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

So your position is if you don't understand something, it doesn't exist? If you don't understand it, you'll deny measurements are real?

 

I think that pretty well sums it up. It's that old stupid/ignorant position of "if I haven't seen/felt/tasted it, then it doesn't exist." And it explains very well why he is unwilling to learn anything new.

 

You measure incorrectly. You have never measured reality.

 

Yes I am sure you will die laughing; and ignorant. At least you'll die happy, which realy is the most important thing. Still, I can't figure out why you come here and expose yourself to ridicule - won't anybody play with you?

 

Pot? Is that you? This is Kettle. If you would open your eyes and take your fingers out of your ears and quit saying la la la, your world might open up like you've never seen before.

 

If you had any real interest in science you would ignore the messenger and read the message. You seem to be more concerned with personal attacks than finding the truth.

 

This is your only answer to thousands of physicists over the last 100 years experimenting and measuring. You think you're the only one who can measure? This is really where you seem to lose all touch with reality.

 

You mean not all people perceive gravity? Some perceptions are universal, aren't they. So is science.

All motion is relative since there is no absolute position. You're simply confusing "absolute" and "inertial reference frame".

Then it would behoove you to check your accuracy.

I would call things by the way they are known in standard language, in order to reach the largest audience.

You mean you didn't like Principia? It got such rave reviews.

Except now you're prepared to admit that he was correct about relativity, since every time you use your GPS you're confirming he was right. 100%.

Sounds like the mindset of utter failure.

All motion is relative, 100% of the time, just as accuracy applies to measurements 100% of the time. But GPS solutions will properly apply Einstein's principles of relativity 100% of the time, confirming that time and space are relative, which is perhaps the only accurate part of the geolocation calculations.

You seem 100% baffled by this.

I wonder which document that might be.

So far we've exclusively been looking a posteriori.