The Importance of Pseudosciences

No, that is tendentious. "Doubtful" implies there are reasons to think something may be wrong.

Whereas what we have, with most scientific theories, is no reason to think them wrong (and in some cases we have reasons to think they have limited applicability). It is merely that we cannot prove them absolutely right.

That does not make them "doubtful".
Don't scientific understandings come wrong? Many drugs, well studied previously, still got banned due to serious adverse effects even to fatal level, on field applications. Does it not make science as doubtful or skeptical? Say for eg. a man started climbing a mountain and could yet climb say 50% and still climbing. Yes he can reach on top on any day. But if he found, path was right having much odds or he crash down, how then you can claim, man took right path without doubts?
 
Don't scientific understandings come wrong? Many drugs, well studied previously, still got banned due to serious adverse effects even to fatal level, on field applications. Does it not make science as doubtful or skeptical? Say for eg. a man started climbing a mountain and could yet climb say 50% and still climbing. Yes he can reach on top on any day. But if he found, path was right having much odds or he crash down, how then you can claim, man took right path without doubts?
No. Errors or unforeseen results happen in any human activity. That does not call their validity or usefulness into question.
 
No, that is tendentious. "Doubtful" implies there are reasons to think something may be wrong.

Whereas what we have, with most scientific theories, is no reason to think them wrong (and in some cases we have reasons to think they have limited applicability). It is merely that we cannot prove them absolutely right.

That does not make them "doubtful".
This.

Law, theory, hypothesis. Some people do not understand any of the three.
 
No. Errors or unforeseen results happen in any human activity. That does not call their validity or usefulness into question.
Yes but such human activities are science based backed by strict studies. Moreover, serious side affects remain involved. So, there should not be human error or unforseen results. If it is anticipated as normal then it is justified to doubt science esp that science which can give side effects. Some weakness or limitation can be maintainable but not the errors or unforseen results.
 
Yes but such human activities are science based backed by strict studies. Moreover, serious side affects remain involved. So, there should not be human error or unforseen results. If it is anticipated as normal then it is justified to doubt science esp that science which can give side effects. Some weakness or limitation can be maintainable but not the errors or unforseen results.
Don't be stupid. Even aeroplanes sometimes crash. Does that mean you "doubt" that you will survive a plane journey?

Nothing is without error in this life.
 
Don't be stupid. Even aeroplanes sometimes crash. Does that mean you "doubt" that you will survive a plane journey?

Nothing is without error in this life.
Yes, so every system should be doubted.....scientific or non-scientific. We do take more risk in traveling by a plane then by walking.
 
Yes, so every system should be doubted.....scientific or non-scientific.
Sure. Unfortunately, that logic leads to living in a hermetically-sealed plastic bubble your entire life, lest you risk the side effects of living.

All things must have their benefits weighted against their risk of adversity.


We do take more risk in traveling by a plane then by walking.
Do we?

Do you know the rates of injury per unit distance travelled, by foot and by plane? I think you'd be surprised.

You are actually almost 100 times more likely to die walking than flying.

Walking is penultimate on the list of deaths-per-mile, next only to motorcycles.

http://961theeagle.com/what-is-the-safest-way-to-travel-by-plane-car-train-space-shuttle/
 
Last edited:
Yes, so every system should be doubted.....scientific or non-scientific.
The point that you persist in missing (or ignoring) is that some systems (e.g. science) should be doubted less than others (e.g. pseudoscience).
 
Moreover nothing can be said for sure till scientific understandings become absolute and final.

And THAT will never happen

:)

Saying gravity works because because angels push things together is unsupported pseudoscience.

It's cherubs

:)

KUMAR5 original post and all of the following you appear to be trying to pin down and fix many different ideas into one all encompassing solid unchangeable state

Doesn't work. Yes the laws of physics ARE fixed. Yes we do not know exactly how they work. Yes even if we work out exactly how they worked we would not know why they came into being to work the way they do work

Religion answer = god = magic

Science answer = don't know = would like to know = do know not magic

Do know (suspect, reasonably certain, any other qualifiers you care to add) not magic because magic has never (subject to the laws of physics being changed, and any other qualifiers you care to add) been observed (perhaps we were looking in the wrong place, wrong time and any other qualifiers you care to add)

Have I been skeptical enough?

:)
 
Sure. Unfortunately, that logic leads to living in a hermetically-sealed plastic bubble your entire life, lest you risk the side effects of living.

All things must have their benefits weighted against their risk of adversity.



Do we?

Do you know the rates of injury per unit distance travelled, by foot and by plane? I think you'd be surprised.

You are actually almost 100 times more likely to die walking than flying.

Walking is penultimate on the list of deaths-per-mile, next only to motorcycles.

http://961theeagle.com/what-is-the-safest-way-to-travel-by-plane-car-train-space-shuttle/

Nature has kept us exised since million of years without modern science. Don't we underestimate it?

Death by mistakes and accidents are not inherent risks.These are just odd happenings. Inherent risk by walking and by plane need to be compared. Most people die naurally but few on bomb blast. Does it mean bomb blast is less risky?
 
Nature has kept us exised since million of years without modern science. Don't we underestimate it?

Death by mistakes and accidents are not inherent risks.These are just odd happenings. Inherent risk by walking and by plane need to be compared. Most people die naurally but few on bomb blast. Does it mean bomb blast is less risky?

Laws of physics existed just after the Big Bang
Science really is just science, and is a investing PROCESS
Life existed for millions of years because it adapted to do so
Discoveries from investigating have certainly discovered ways of extending some life entities
Death comes to every living entitiy
HOW it will come is pure chance
One of the posters here has a profile saying
Life is fatal
That sums up everything

:)
 
Laws of physics existed just after the Big Bang
Science really is just science, and is a investing PROCESS
Life existed for millions of years because it adapted to do so
Discoveries from investigating have certainly discovered ways of extending some life entities

Yes but that was without intervention of modern science. Healthful life is more natural.
Discoveries from investigating have also certainly discovered ways to destruct life--pollution tools, highly deadly weapens, stress, sed. life style etc.
Nature affect both sides for its balance.
Death comes to every living entitiy
HOW it will come is pure chance
One of the posters here has a profile saying
Life is fatal
That sums up everything

:)

Yes, modern discoveries could just restrict it but couldn't resist or stop it.
 
KUMAR5 <<<<<------ me thinks from responses ----->>>>>> bot

No emotion - responses have mechanical feel

:)
 
Sorry. ????
He is saying your responses seem mechanical, suggesting you could be a bot.

I don't think it fits.

Although I gotta say, there is nothing more off-putting than having some tell us how we should be thinking - as if it's our problem that you're not getting the reactions you desire. The onus is on you to express your case, not to try to manage our thinking processes.
 
No. Death is more natural.
Early death is far, far far more common in the natural world - including prehistoric man - than in the modern world.
So is extinction.
We need to be sure, which type of death is more natural, older type when living under natural conditions or today's type living under too much unnatural conditions? Only few healthy fruits are sustained on a fruit tree. Many fall down prematured. I do not know if all fruits are sustained, whether they all will be natural and healthy or not.
 
We need to be sure, which type of death is more natural, older type when living under natural conditions or today's type living under too much unnatural conditions?
"Natural" means early death from a poor diet, loss of ability to eat (loss of teeth) and accident, disease and neglect. During the time the Pyramids were being built, for example, people lived about 45 years on average,
Only few healthy fruits are sustained on a fruit tree. Many fall down prematured. I do not know if all fruits are sustained, whether they all will be natural and healthy or not.
Fruits evolved to fall off a tree. That's how the tree spreads its fruit. It has nothing to do with human lifespan.
 
"Natural" means early death from a poor diet, loss of ability to eat (loss of teeth) and accident, disease and neglect. During the time the Pyramids were being built, for example, people lived about 45 years on average,

Fruits evolved to fall off a tree. That's how the tree spreads its fruit. It has nothing to do with human lifespan.

Whatever. Natural may be truth but may not serve to all esp when excess. Fruits should be best natural food by which our purpose of food, tree purpose of seed dispersal and nature's purpose to maintain food & trees, are fulfilled. Seems to be no violence in it esp when fall after full ripening.
 
Back
Top