Moving From Pseudoscience To Actual Science

[current]

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? 

 

because he was ignored .

[DrKrettin]

that's the thing .

 

Halton's evidence is ignored as being , pseudoscience . 

 

 

 

You don't know what pseudoscience is, do you?

[current]

You don't know what pseudoscience is, do you?

 

 

I do , but what my point is , is that these people were and still treated as their theories are , pseudoscience . 

 

since none of the above scientists are in the mainstream thinking .

[exchemist]

because he was ignored .

You have a strange idea of what it means for a scientist to be ignored. The guy was awarded the Nobel Prize!  

[exchemist]

I do , but what my point is , is that these people were and still treated as their theories are , pseudoscience . 

 

since none of the above scientists are in the mainstream thinking .

No you have pointedly ignored my explanation of the difference between science and pseudoscience, as it does not fit your personal  idee fixe. 

 

Arp and Warburg were quite clearly scientists, not pseudoscientists, and were recognised and honoured, not ignored. They did each however, in the course of long and successful lives in science, entertain some theories that are now rejected. That can happen to any scientist  and has nothing whatsoever to do with pseudoscience. 

 

You have yet to support your claim that they were seen as pseudoscientists. 

[current]

You have a strange idea of what it means for a scientist to be ignored. The guy was awarded the Nobel Prize!  

 

sure but mainstream science ignored him .

[current]

pseudoscience is to me is science ignored , yet has evidence for .

[exchemist]

sure but mainstream science ignored him .

Who do you think decides who to give the Nobel Prize to? Some fringe group of New Age hippies?

[exchemist]

pseudoscience is to me is science ignored , yet has evidence for .

As I've already explained to you, that is NOT what pseudoscience is.

 

I repeat my post 34, since you did not take it in first time round:

 

"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. "

[current]

As I've already explained to you, that is NOT what pseudoscience is.

 

I repeat my post 34, since you did not take it in first time round:

 

"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. "

 

I agree 

 

but , as I said before , given the facilities to prove their point , they might be proven , right or close to right .

[exchemist]

I agree 

 

but , as I said before , given the facilities to prove their point , they might be proven , right or close to right .

You are an idiot, river. I've had enough.   

[current]

You are an idiot, river. I've had enough.   

 

everybody has the right to explore their idea , to the full extant of the idea . without being told it is off track completely . 

 

I resent that idea(s) are all time written off , because we don't understand the idea and/or can't wrap their heads around the idea . 

 

To me some ideas have merit , some don't . but who is the judge ? 

 

I watch a doc. on Russian rocket engines . their engines , after much research , trial and error . ended up with 25% more thrust than the American rocket engine , and at the same time was a smaller engine . the American scientists , recently , thought that the engineering of the rocket by the Russians was impossible . 

 

Nasa bought 100 engines of the Russian design . 

 

my point of course is what may seem pseudoscience at the time , can become " actual science " . 

Edited March 10, 2017 by current

[current]

American rocket engines were an open system rocket engine .

 

the Russian engine is a closed system rocket engine . hence more power and more efficient rocket engine .

[DrKrettin]

pseudoscience is to me is science ignored , yet has evidence for .

 

 Exchemist has tried explaining, but you don't get it. You are using your own definition of pseudoscience, which is just wrong. There is no point in arguing further.

[current]

 Exchemist has tried explaining, but you don't get it. You are using your own definition of pseudoscience, which is just wrong. There is no point in arguing further.

 

so be it 

[current]

so pseudoscience includes UFO's etc .

 

is that it ?

[DrKrettin]

so pseudoscience includes UFO's etc .

 

is that it ?

 

It includes things like astrology and homeopathy which claim to have a scientific background but which can show no evidence that they work. Not sure about UFOs. They certainly exist, because they are flying, they are objects, and they are unidentified. Anything else is just conjecture.