Revolutionary science vs psuedoscience

Science is Science. There IS NO PSEUDOSCIENCE.

History dictates that personal opinions have dominated over The scientific method.

Imagine people thought the world was flat. Why did they think this?
Believing the world is flat is very unscientific because the entire concept is based on personal opinions, and have no validity in science if we were to look at the scientific method as a primary method of determiing reality.

A scientist today might say it is common sense to think the world is round, and a scientist from 1000 years ago would tell you it is common sense to think the world is flat.
Common sense and personal opinions should not be a part of the procedure we call science. It is arrogant and introduces bias.

Now imagine someone on Sciforums decided maybe the world was round. Scientifically this might be a decent assumption because there is no proof that the world is flat. It is a scientific hypothesis that ignores personal opinions. The author of this hypothesis would risk ridicule and probable bans (these days) for suggesting something so ridiculous. Imagine the audacity of suggesting the world is round, because if it was not flat we would all fall off.

Scientists are normal and likely intelligent people who like to make sense of things, and it is fairly obvious that if the world was round then everyone would fall off. This arrogance implementing personal opinion as fact is very common.

MOST SCIFORUMS MEMBERS SEEM TO HAVE SET PERSONAL OPINIONS THAT OVERRULE THEIR SCIENTIFIC NATURE. THESE WINGDINGS ARE MOSTLY POMPOUS AND ARROGANT KNOW-IT-ALLS who "feel" their opinions of reality overrule actual science.
(Hold you indignation until after you read entire post please)

Personal Opinion vs Real Science

Nobody has ever proved the world is flat, so why would you have that opinion?
Why would you argue in favor of an unproven theory based on personal opinion.

IT IS IDIOCY?

I see people argue against Telepathy which is stupid for several reasons.

The only valid argument against Telepathy is personal opinion. There is no factual basis for thinking Telepathy cannot exist except arrogant personal opinion. If we are going to let arrogant people decide science then why even bother with it. Let's just ask some of them how it all is.

How can a scientific mind rule out possibilities with no evidence? The only answer can be personal opinion/arrogance.

I know many here recognize their ignorance when I say these things, and expect some whining along the lines of "There is no proof of telepathy so why should we even consider it"? , and the short answer is because it has not been ruled out as a possibility. I could go further into mentioning successful experiments, etc., but that should not be necessary. It will always remain a possibility.

Using the same logic someone could argue that "pigs Flying" has also not been ruled out, and could also be a possibility. That is a smarter deduction than ruling it out altogether with no scientific proof. Until someone can prove pigs cannot fly then it is not ruled out. That should be a scientific perspective.

Does this make any sense to you?

Of course it doesn't.

Despite everything I have said I am now going to say that Personal Opinion and Common Sense MUST be the overall common denominator. I wrote the above in a way to show the problems with using Personal Opinion over Scientific Facts.

Now to answer the question.

Pseudoscience is science that does not agree with Personal Opinion. It does not make it false science. It is possibilities, just not popular ones.

Yes. Many sciences were once thought of as impossible and would be considered woo.
A hammer and nail would have been woo in the caveman era, as would a pizza.

That is likely the best way to describe pseudoscience, and I know pseudoscience.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That is completely wrong. For you to think pseudoscience is science and somehow personal opinion is part of the equation just shows you have no idea what you are talking about.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

There is the scientific method and the unfolding of good science follows that method. If the method is not followed and yet there are claims that science is being done without invoking the scientific method, we have a case for questioning the claims, and to the extent that they cannot be brought in under the scientific method because they have already failed or would certainly fail under that method, they can be categorized as pseudoscience.

Speculation is one of the slippery slopes that can easily lead to pseudoscience if the speculative claims aren't posed properly. Speculation can be seen as an initial phase of science to which the scientific method should be applied. But too often, speculative claims are made that invoke fantasy, the Supernatural, or just idle or wild speculation, and those offering such claims have no intention of applying the scientific method or any test of reasonableness or any responsible approach to developing the speculation into science. That is pseudoscience.

However, speculation can take the form of a hypothesis that cannot be tested because of the limits of our ability to observe. In that case the hypothesis can be distinguished from pseudoscience since the stage of developing a hypothesis is part of the scientific method. Pure hypothesis cannot yet be included as science until new technology creates the ability to test the hypothesis, but still, untestable hypotheses are not classified as pseudoscience unless the fantasy, Supernatural, wild or idle characteristics are evident.

And also, pseudoscience is sometimes created from misunderstood science where there is an incomplete understanding of the underlying observations, and/or no clear understanding of where the observables leave off and the mathematics take over. If one confirms that the mathematics are correct and then professes that the correct math makes them equal to scientific observation and fact, then those individuals might mistakenly fall into the trap of misrepresenting theoretical physics as observable reality, and that is a form of pseudoscience as well, in my opinion.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

There is a fundamental difference between opinions (or theories) and pseudoscience. Keep in mind that pseudoscience was a word that had to be coined to describe the particular type of deceptive propaganda issued by creationists, a term that probably was first used in perhaps the 1980s when the Religious Right began pretending to prop up the Fundamentalist view of the origins of nature with brazen propaganda designed to make their audience mistrustful of the quality of evidence available from scientific sources.

Pseudoscience is nonsense parading as science. It is marked by dishonesty, usu. deception, fraud, and lies, and usually deliberately pretending to speak from authority, while the proponent is usually not qualified to claim such authority. This may also be done deceptively; for example, the person may claim a PhD without actually having one, or else turns out to have an advanced degree in an unrelated field. While offering the pretense of authority, pseudoscience will just as likely turn against learning, experience, data, books, journals, academia and professional trades in science as tied to some kind of slavish adherence to institutional propaganda. This attitude is marked by cynicism, fatalism, religiosity, contempt for authority, naivete, and a narcissistic persona which feels superior to the sum of all knowledge in the world. Yet they can not correctly state some of the simplest of principles in science and math found on the college entrance exams.

Pseudoscience is marked by the stubborn pursuit of untenable ideas, by giving a fake application of scientific principles or formulas. Usually they can be spotted by 1st or 2nd year science students, who have already been thoroughly examined in, say, the axioms of geometry, and are well-situated to detect fallacious reasoning when they see it. Even novice scientists can detect other specious tactics used, such as the pretense that A equals B when the units don't even match, or some overriding principle is ignored, such as stipulations that would violate the laws of thermodynamics, electromagnetics, or relativity. In their early education, scientists learn what it means when necessary and sufficient conditions apply to a causal nexus, and will easily find the fallacy of the pseudoscience claimant who fails to comprehend this.

Pseudoscience usually involves some kind of conspiracy theory, a fake persecution or martyr complex, and/or religiosity. Even a person reasonably educated in the art of writing prose or journalism can detect the rhetorical devices used by people who are lying or otherwise overbearing and/or manipulative in their use of language. Pseudoscience often persists in jargon or otherwise pretentious speech. They tend to have little grasp of precise technical language, and will either ignore necessary terminology and definitions, or else they simply twist words to suit their ends.

Pseudoscience is marked by a lack of evidence, a dishonest presentation of evidence, and/or the assertion of conclusions that do not necessarily follow from a given fact or piece of evidence, whether due to questions already settled, and for which the evidence has already been considered, or else the nexus between settled questions and the supporting evidence is suddenly claimed to have no nexus.

Pseudoscience relies on selective extraction of quotations from experts, quote-mining, and/or deliberate modification of the experts' ideas, even while ignoring key ideas by the expert. Just as easily, experts will be ridiculed and maligned as charlatans and frauds.

Pseudoscience is all of this and more. But most of all, it's a propaganda weapon wielded by religious fundamentalists to convince impressionable minds that their lies are credible. It's a weapon that relies on, encourages, and even glorifies ignorance.

Compare this to common disagreements such as two scientists may have had during the development of plate tectonics. I think you'll see the two cases are as different as night and day. One seeks truth, and the other hates it.

 

You're spewing the bullshit. I call that a lie. You're accusing this site of having something to do with 'smothering' the links you posted? Saving crank links is something you need to do. Not me. I'm generally familiar with the science covered in the links I post. How about you?

 

Very informative post. Thanks.

 

@ Origin,
Your post lacks common sense, as my statement was bang on.

@ Aqueous Id,
First of all, you are consistent with detailed responses lately. Although I am forced to disagree.

It may have been coined for creationists, but here on Sciforums is a sub-forum that is a catch all basin for any topic that cannot be proved as science, yet cannot be disproved either. Therefore it must be opinion based in the sense we use it.

I (and thousands) might argue Telepathy is an undiscovered science. I know many make it sound like we are promoting the concept of some mysterious magical happening when Telepathy takes place, however many feel science will eventually explain it.

It is a matter of opinion as neither of us can prove our stances. It is unfair to say it doesn't fit The Scientific Method because it never can. The measurement devices used are people, who can be influenced by numerous mental defects. Successful replications are measured in probabilities, and even though there are certain type of Telapathy experiments that score very highly with probabilities, probability is not 100% replication as TSM requires.

This is almost sounding like the pseudoscience paper James R likes to post from time to time. As I said in my previous post a Hammer and Nail would be considered Pseudoscience to a caveman. It would seem like nonsense trying to explain a metallic object hammering another metal object into planks of wood. Nonsense does not mean it is not science. It might just mean it is not a popular OPINION that it is science. The cavemen would laugh and fart, and forget all about your foolish notion of Hammers and Nails.

Again this sounds like James R paper on the topic. Are you guys conspiring? (JK). Seriously though, How would you classify a subject like Telepathy? They dislike it in the science Forums as "OPINION" states it is not a valid science YET.

This makes no sense. I have seen Telepathy experiments that are conducted. There is often double blinds and locked doors involved in the process. The results are in no way influenced by selective quotations.

I use Telepathy as an example because it fits the criteria here quite well. You would have a difficult time placing this in any category except pseudoscience. Some might argue it is parapsychology and/or Alternate Theories, but they have all taken on similar meanings.

I realize some think I am foolish to believe in Telepathy, but I have done it repeatedly with uncanny results. I have witnessed experiments you would never even read about, and I have read about experiments you will never even hear of. I think skeptics must be missing a few brain cells, and simply cannot grasp the obvious, but my exposure to this field is further advanced than most of you, so perhaps it is not brain damage at play.

The term pseudoscience must consider many topics that do not fit your description. I would argue that all science was not at first popular belief, and ALL aspects of todays science was at one time considered woo, or some version of the term pseudoscience.

@ Origin Again,
Now the OP made it clear that the "revolutionary science" they meant were items that had not yet met The Scientific Method. Something revolutionary may come from Telepathy.
http://home.sandiego.edu/~baber/logic/gallup.html
One thing that intrigues me about sciforums is how skeptics seem so sure in their belief. It is puzzling because most people believe in Telepathy, and it seems easy enough to do. Maybe I have a bigger brain or something that allows me to both participate in Telepathy and recognize when it is occurring, but I think some people are simply too Anal to attempt it.

I am sorry you did not understand my last post well enough to grasp how opinion is involved, but for opinion not to be involved there would need to be a strong definition (Not the James R/Aqueous ID definitions either) in place for sorting purposes. Since none exist, it is only LOGICAL to assume opinion then rules.
I thought that would be easy to comprehend, but some people are slower than others.

 

Bigger brain? Really. Maybe if it was smaller it would work.

 

it's the facts as i know them.
apparently you haven't been following along.
do you usually do that? give judgments on things you have no idea what you are talking about?

i stated what happened to the links after posting them here, whether it's , ahem, coincidence or not is unknown.

i've learned the lesson.
the links and the contents of those links will indeed be saved to my HDD before posting them here.

yes.

 

The threads I have seen relegated to the Pseudoscience Forum are the ones in which the OP brings a fake appearance of science. There probably are some exceptions, but that's the trend I've noticed.

Science itself is not undiscovered. Science is an agreed upon methodology which utilizes a library of established facts, to discover new facts to add to that library. Something about telepathy may someday be discovered, but if not done under the umbrella of science, then it's not incorporated into the body of scientific knowledge.

Science already explains feelings and beliefs. When they do not comport with Nature, while purporting to, then scientific opinion is that they are false.

It depends on what you mean. If we are operating under the umbrella of science, then we would first agree to abide by, say, the axioms of geometry. We would used principles handed down by (for example) Aristotle, Pythagoras or Euclid to establish the framework for analyzing a given set of facts. Under those principles, we would (or could) arrive at methods that we would then agree upon as constituting proofs. Under that framework, we would then be able to differentiate opinion from proof.

Then it's not science.

And fallacy. Which is why we rely so much on science to ascertain the truth of a matter.

Not sure what you mean here. I can construct any test of Telepathy and it will fail 100% of the time.

Could be. Not familiar with it, or if I've seen it, I don't recall. Any person with a background in math or science would give you a similar explanation.

Things are not science or pseudoscience. Methods are.

You mean: to primitive people who had no science. That's not a productive argument; it goes nowhere. In questions of science, you simply follow the path of (as I suggested above) Aristotle, or any person of similar methodology. I would suggest you try that tack if you wish to analyze some aspect of the scientific method.

A proposition that relies on nonsense is inconclusive, and the method that advances such is unscientific.

Popular opinion doesn't shape Nature, it shapes itself. We come behind and do our best to discover what Nature is and what it's doing. That's science in a nutshell.

This is not a statement about science. However, you are reminding me of Plato's parable of the cave:

[video]http://www.objectivistfilmbulletin.com/platoscave.html[/video]

I'm not sure what paper you mean. Everything I've read that he has posted (concerning science) reflects true science.

Telepathy is a belief that people can communicate without the presence of a signal. I would classify it as superstition.

Science is the application of objectivity to distinguish fact from opinion, as Plato does by allegory in the above clip.

I can't help you except to encourage you to take a course in geometry, one in logic, and another in biology or chemistry, and see if any of the reasons you have for believing Telepathy could prove that the sides of a triangle are parallel, or A = NOT A, or any reaction can spontaneously reverse, or that the powers of telepathy can be used to reprogram the cells in your body to survive on CO2.

Not my call. The method of argument convicts itself.

The hallmark of pseudoscience is the parade of ideas under a sham pretense of science.

I have no doubt that's what you believe. But I also am quite certain that, if you followed by suggestion above (taking courses) you would eventually be able to analyze your own mistakes under the scientific method.

I see things like this all the time. I don't think it's unusual at all.

That's a pretty good illustration of what I meant by superstition.

One thing I said was: "pseudoscience is all of this and more". Again, it's the methods used, not the topic per se, which determine whether the logic is scientific or not.

Again, science is a method, quite similar to that of Aristotle or Euclid. For a simple example, consider the syllogism "if A = B and B = C, then A = C." It's one of countless methods for integrating facts accurately. Try analyzing an actual principle such as this with by the logic you offer above.

 

actually the repeatability of the testing is the proof.

this is also false.
you will indeed get a few positive hits but they will be so few and far between that the hits can be regarded as coincidence.

this depends on the assumptions you make.
if you assume that brainwaves are the manifestations of the brains activity then is easy to see how telepathy is indeed possible.

 

@ Leopold,
Thanks for defending this position, but I'd like to add to several points you just made as well. Cheers!

Primitive people had science. They just did not recognize it. I propose the same thing is happening now.
If a caveman realized he might be able to put hot rocks in water to make it boil for his tea he has created a hypothesis. If he tries it and it boils each time then he has proved his Theory. Almost any object from your home would seem strange and magical to a caveman, as much as telepathy seems to you now.

Surprisingly many people confuse Telepathy tests with Astrology, Crystal balls, Palmistry, Dousing, etc., but fair psychic tests score surprisingly well, and sleep telepathy (while receiver is dreaming and then awoken) scores extremely high with hits. Some factors that contribute to high telepathy scores are:
a) A close relationship between subjects (family members score higher than strangers, Twins work best).
b) The relaxation of the receiver and sender. Training and practice help.
c) Dream telepathy works best.

If you avoided doing all that and included skeptic senders and receivers as well then perhaps you could score very low. I do think that anyone willing to actually look at telepathy to the point of experimenting will come to the conclusion based on empirical evidence that telepathy is very real.

Imagine there was some immeasurable interference in the atmosphere that only allowed some radio transmissions to go through. Now pretend you needed to prove the Radio using the scientific method. Let's say you can only get 9 out of 10 transmissions to work. It would:
a) fail the scientific method
b) be a valid science despite the skeptics
c) be a valid science despite failing The Scientific Methods reproducing ability.
In 1876, Alexander Graham Bell said, "I doubt Marconi did that. It's an impossibility."

This is a problem with The Scientific method. It denounces probabilities. Since there is only a 90% chance that radio waves work then it is not science according to TSM.

Another skeptic shouts, "well with enough tries you are bound to get a 90% result."

But what if every test yields a 90% result.

Telepathy tests can be very highly effective if the above conditions are met, but still rely on humans to do the transmitting that can get hungry, irritable, and unenthusiastic. Yet still with very high probabilities.

I made a mistake in my last post by saying telepathy can NEVER be measured with the scientific method. I was speaking of todays technology. Telepathy must operate on a frequency higher than Gamma for its abilities to easily transmit through walls and solid objects. Perhaps one day we will have the measurement devices necessary to measure thoughtwaves.

It is communication without a signal detectable by any known machine we possess at present that we are aware of. Obviously there would need to be some signal present.

It is a shame skeptics don't spend a few hours trying to influence people themselves, or spend the odd few minutes reading about telepathy experiments. The only telepathy experiments I have heard of failing is those designed by skeptics in hopes they would fail.

It is a shame that you must live your life with such shallow understanding. It must be frightening I would think.

Please try to influence a sleeping friend. Speak to their mental image for an hour straight with some quick and repeated message. Aim for peak dream times like 2-3am. Once you can do this nine out of ten times you might have a better understanding of how we feel.
GL

 

Aqueous Id, tks for that thorough breakdown of the pseudoscientific mindset. But aside from the logical inconsistencies, the rhetorical gimmicks, and the methodological flaws of your typical psuedoscience, there remains on the other side of the fence a stubborn tendency among many to dismiss a field or topic based purely on ideological grounds. I distinguish such skeptics, usually organized into societies and led by the ex-magician James Randi, as "ideological skeptics" as opposed to "methodological skeptics." Based on a sort of dogmatic adherence towards disproving all non-naturalist claims, this contingent axiomatically rules out the very possibility of phenomena that doesn't fit into a strictly physicalist paradigm. Hence even ufos, while being a topic that by all standards violates no scientific principles that I know of, is commonly dismissed out of hand as "paranormal" as if all talk of even seeing ufos is just plain nonsense. I am wary of this sort of philosophical bias that so often predetermines what topics can even be treated respectably and open-mindedly or else totally dismissed as ludicrous. These ideological assumptions that totally decide in advance what is and isn't to be allowed in scientific discourse. Don't you feel there is a little of this going on in the scientific community? That say for example any talk of even just researching telepathy or paranormal phenomena tends to be suppressed as pseudoscientic already?

 

A list of pseudosciences defined by topic:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_topics_characterized_as_pseudoscience

 

Agreed

And really with NO serious research to back up the claims of the mainstream science against the so called pseudo-science

 

That's nonsense. Science doesn't reject theoretical models 'purely on ideological grounds'. You're just making stuff up. The scientific method sets standards for falsifying or confirming theoretical predictions. Science doesn't care what 'ideological or methodological skeptics' do or think. Nobody is stopping you, or anybody else, from utilizing the scientific method for making a prediction and testing it empirically. Quit whining. Opinion can't stop you from doing science. Id did a great job of explaining 'pseudoscience'. Anything falling into that category has a way out if it can meet the standards set by the scientific method. Scientific discourse isn't a bunch of words.

 

Quit whining. Really. I've seen so-called scientific links disappear off the Internet. Generally they're removed by the folks who put the link there in the first place. Or maybe there's a legal issue. Or maybe they came to their senses and realized it's bullshit nonsense.

 

Yet the so called scientific method has its limits

For another instance , the electric universe

And that the nuclear decay is not as consistent as believed

 

You're overemoting. Did I touch a chord?

 

the "defense" is based on an unproven assumption.
there would still be a quite a bit of work to do even if the assumption proves to be true.
if it is proven true then you must show that there is a region of the brain that can capture and decode these "signals".
on the other hand biofeedback seems to suggest that there is indeed a reason to believe the above 2 assumptions will be proved.

unfortunately science doesn't work that way.
to be seen as unbiased and legit the "sender" and "receiver" must be unknown to each other and as an added factor they should not know they are participating in a telepathy test.

i will go a very real possibility.
the actual reality has yet to be seen.
there is a difference.
physics will tell you that perfect vacuums are a possibility.
the reality of such has yet to be seen.

not true.
low frequencies penetrate rocks and water better than high frequencies.