Moving From Pseudoscience To Actual Science

[current]

Actually there is a simple test to distinguish science from pseudoscience. 

 

A real scientific theory is something that can be corroborated by reproducible observations and is able to predict correctly the results of future observations. 

 

Pseudoscience does not follow this discipline. 

 

Pseudoscience is pervasive these days, via dissemination on the internet. It is one symptom of the more general attack on rationality that we are suffering from in many aspects of modern society, not least in our politics.  

 

One reason I subscribe to some of these internet forms is to fight back against it.:)

 

Understood

 

The situation is ; these so call " pseudoscience " are not given the same facilities and time to prove their point .

[exchemist]

Understood

 

The situation is ; these so call " pseudoscience " are not given the same facilities and time to prove their point .

No, you have not understood at all.

 

My point is that the distinguishing feature of pseudoscience is that it ignores the twin disciplines of relying on reproducible, objective observation of nature and of constructing hypotheses that make testable predictions.

 

This is a basic philosophical point. It has nothing to do with access to facilities.

 

It has to do with the unscientific manner in which the study of nature is approached, by the pseudoscientist. 

 

(By the way, when you talk of "proving their point", that is also an unscientific misconception. There is no proof in science. All there is is evidence in support of, or against, a theory or hypothesis. Proof belongs to logic, maths and law, not science.) 

Edited March 10, 2017 by exchemist

[current]

No, you have not understood at all.

 

My point is that the distinguishing feature of pseudoscience is that it ignores the twin disciplines of relying on reproducible, objective observation of nature and of constructing hypotheses that make testable predictions.

 

This is a basic philosophical point. It has nothing to do with access to facilities.

 

It has to do with the unscientific manner in which the study of nature is approached, by the pseudoscientist. 

 

(By the way, when you talk of "proving their point", that is also an unscientific misconception. There is no proof in science. All there is is evidence in support of, or against, a theory or hypothesis. Proof belongs to logic, maths and law, not science.) 

 

No , you don't understand .

 

facilities , the access to these facilities , telescopes , computers , etc. have ALL to do with proving a point . 

 

given access to state of the art , telescopes and computers , a few scientists of cosmology , outside the mainstream would have proven their point .

 

and those have had the , logic , maths and law , to prove their point . just for example . have been pushed aside , and more , ruined .

 

science and scientists has become the science of common scientist . 

 

there are far more common scientists than there are , Einstein's of any field of science . THAT is the problem with science . Science has become , conservative because most scientist don't have the intellect to be but conservative . 

 

I'm being harsh I know . yet the most talented people in science are all ways , outside the box .

Edited March 10, 2017 by current

[DrKrettin]

No , you don't understand .

 

facilities , the access to these facilities , telescopes , computers , etc. have ALL to do with proving a point . 

 

given access to state of the art , telescopes and computers , a few scientists of cosmology , outside the mainstream would have proven their point .

 

and those have had the , logic , maths and law , to prove their point . just for example . have been pushed aside , and more , ruined .

 

science and scientists has become the science of common scientist . 

 

there are far more common scientists than there are , Einstein's of any field of science . THAT is the problem with science . Science has become , conservative because most scientist don't have the intellect to be but conservative . 

 

 

Nonsense. You don't seem to have any concept of scientific method. Which pseudoscience would benefit from more material resources? Astrology?

[current]

Nonsense. You don't seem to have any concept of scientific method. Which pseudoscience would benefit from more material resources? Astrology?

 

oh really . so there is no scientist that has held to this " scientific method " who has not been ignored ? 

[DrKrettin]

oh really . so there is no scientist that has held to this " scientific method " who has not been ignored ? 

 

This thread is about the difference between pseudoscience and science, not about those scientists who fail to get funding.

[exchemist]

oh really . so there is no scientist that has held to this " scientific method " who has not been ignored ? 

Non sequitur. 

 

Of course there have been scientists that have been ignored: in some cases quite rightly, in others rather shamefully. That's humanity for you.

 

But we were talking abut pseudoscience. There have also been plenty of pseudoscientists that have ben ignored and ridiculed - and long may that continue.  

[exchemist]

No , you don't understand .

 

facilities , the access to these facilities , telescopes , computers , etc. have ALL to do with proving a point . 

 

given access to state of the art , telescopes and computers , a few scientists of cosmology , outside the mainstream would have proven their point .

 

and those have had the , logic , maths and law , to prove their point . just for example . have been pushed aside , and more , ruined .

 

science and scientists has become the science of common scientist . 

 

there are far more common scientists than there are , Einstein's of any field of science . THAT is the problem with science . Science has become , conservative because most scientist don't have the intellect to be but conservative . 

 

I'm being harsh I know . yet the most talented people in science are all ways , outside the box .

You clearly have an idee fixe, formed as a result of your ignorance and unwillingness to learn. 

 

To come to a science forum and try to conduct an anti-science crusade, without engaging with the arguments in response, as you seem bent on doing, is not going to end well for you. In the end you will just be ignored or banned.  

[current]

Non sequitur. 

 

Of course there have been scientists that have been ignored: in some cases quite rightly, in others rather shamefully. That's humanity for you.

 

But we were talking abut pseudoscience. There have also been plenty of pseudoscientists that have ben ignored and ridiculed - and long may that continue.  

 

who is anybody to chose who is pseudoscience and who isn't ? without a full investigation of the theory . sure sometimes they are off the mark , but some aren't .

 

 in the end they could be right .

[DrKrettin]

who is anybody to chose who is pseudoscience and who isn't ? without a full investigation of the theory . sure sometimes they are off the mark , but some aren't .

 

 in the end they could be right .

 

Name one pseudoscience which you think might be right in the end.

[current]

You clearly have an idee fixe, formed as a result of your ignorance and unwillingness to learn. 

 

To come to a science forum and try to conduct an anti-science crusade, without engaging with the arguments in response, as you seem bent on doing, is not going to end well for you. In the end you will just be ignored or banned.  

 

anti-science is it . 

 

wrong , I'm all for science but sometimes the brilliant scientist is not understood by the common scientist .

[current]

Name one pseudoscience which you think might be right in the end.

 

Halton Arp . and Otto Warburg.

Edited March 10, 2017 by current

[exchemist]

who is anybody to chose who is pseudoscience and who isn't ? 

I've already given you the very simple answer to that question - but you have of course chosen to ignore it. 

[exchemist]

Halton Arp . and Otto Warburg.

Herre is the Wiki article on Arp. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halton_Arp

 

No mention of pseudoscience here. Can you cite evidence of his pseudoscience?  

[current]

Hannes Alfven , Kristian Birkeland 

 

https://www.google.ca/search?q=pictures+of+space+filaments&rlz=1C1CHFX_enCA520CA520&espv=2&tbm=isch&imgil=zZiUt2Elz9b23M%253A%253BGLMPWJVtrc4uSM%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fwww.abovetopsecret.com%25252Fforum%25252Fthread686343%25252Fpg1&source=iu&pf=m&fir=zZiUt2Elz9b23M%253A%252CGLMPWJVtrc4uSM%252C_&usg=__vtbvbjW6WEW747i07SivnWE2J0o%3D&biw=1366&bih=662&ved=0ahUKEwjh58WH38vSAhXKxYMKHVLTCoQQyjcIMw&ei=yoHCWOHaE8qLjwTSpqugCA#imgrc=zZiUt2Elz9b23M:

[exchemist]

Halton Arp . and Otto Warburg.

And here is the article on Warburg. Again, no mention of pseudoscience here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Heinrich_Warburg

 

What evidence do you have that he was a pseudoscientist? 

[current]

Herre is the Wiki article on Arp. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halton_Arp

 

No mention of pseudoscience here. Can you cite evidence of his pseudoscience?  

 

that's the thing .

 

Halton's evidence is ignored as being , pseudoscience . 

 

otherwise his research would be included in cosmology and astrophysics thinking . 

 

which it is not .