Scientists Against Pseudoscience

[Vmedvil2]

This is a thread about sign a petition to stand against Pseudoscience, basically from this point onward you will begin to call Pseudoscience as such and be against those that promote Pseudoscience. As Pseudoscience hurts the credibility of every scientist as it makes the public believe falsehoods about science.

 

'

 

If you agree to stand against pseudoscience drop a line about your fight against it in the section below.

Edited December 27, 2019 by VictorMedvil

[OverUnityDeviceUAP]

White Power!

[OverUnityDeviceUAP]

[Vmedvil2]

[OverUnityDeviceUAP]

White Power!

  

 

You know what science really is? 4% accurate, which is bull shits sister and truth's retarded inbred redheaded nephew. "The scientific method" is just a RIP off of 17th century inductive and deductive reasoning. I wouldn't take someone with a PhD's advice with as much as a grain of salt, especially in America but also even in Japan where mathematical acumen is "#1", but #1 on a planet infested by a 7 billion headed conjoined twin that can only regurgitate rote rhetoric and pretentiously enforcing an emergent way of life.

 

In short, I don't care if your sheriff, community priest, congressman, president, your nation's top "experts" and your entire ****ing congress say I'm wrong

They're literally all a bunch of copies of a copy, whereas I give to you long hard and straight as ****ing God

[OverUnityDeviceUAP]

Laying pipe in 'er

[hazelm]

In all due respect, Victor, how does one know which is pseudoscience?  Especially on a forum where everyone posts as he believes.  Two people with different beliefs and both sounding quite convincing.  Since  we do  not know which of the members are well-educated in their fields and which are autodidacts who may or may not be on the right track,  who do we believe?

 

I hope that is a valid question since I have battled with it for years.  And it isn't a science-only question.  It can be applied to most any field.  If you are looking for an answer and get two opposing ones, how do you know?

Edited December 29, 2019 by hazelm

[hazelm]

White Power!

I was going to say it has nothing to do with color but, on second thought, it does.  It also has to do with male/female as my younger sister found out when she got her masters degree in chemical engineering and was  totally unable to get a job in her field.  They suggested she get a PhD in English, more suitable to a woman's career. 

 

That said, what it really has to do with is education and proof of knowledge.  And that is sometimes hard to find out about.  Especially in science where we can often hear "we were wrong".

 

Oh, I am going on and on.  Enough already.  Just. please, don't switch this to a racial issue.  Let's hear -- as I asked Victor elsewhere -- how we really know what is pseudoscience when what is believed today can be wrong tomorrow.  And, on forums where unknown strangers meet, how do we know who speaks with some scientific authority and who is creating scifi - which has been known to become real science?

[Vmedvil2]

In all due respect, Victor, how does one know which is pseudoscience?  Especially on a forum where everyone posts as he believes.  Two people with different beliefs and both sounding quite convincing.  Since  we do  not know which of the members are well-educated in their fields and which are autodidacts who may or may not be on the right track,  who do we believe?

 

I hope that is a valid question since I have battled with it for years.  And it isn't a science-only question.  It can be applied to most any field.  If you are looking for an answer and get two opposing ones, how do you know?

 

Pseudoscience has nothing to do with the authority of the person but rather the correctness of the idea. You know by experience and the credibility of the idea, it is your personal job to stay well informed about the subject if something seems incorrect and does not keep to evidence then it shows the pseudo-scientific nature of said idea. Sometimes it is a good measure to understand the validity of the theories proposed and "Google" the concepts to make sure it is not pseudoscience there is much pseudoscience on this forum, so once again it is up to you to stay informed about the theories discussed and be the judge of the correctness of said concept.

Edited December 29, 2019 by VictorMedvil

[hazelm]

Pseudoscience has nothing to do with the authority of the person but rather the correctness of the idea. You know by experience and the credibility of the idea, it is your personal job to stay well informed about the subject if something seems incorrect and does not keep to evidence then it shows the pseudo-scientific nature of said idea. Sometimes it is a good measure to understand the validity of the theories proposed and "Google" the concepts to make sure it is not pseudoscience there is much pseudoscience on this forum, so once again it is up to you to stay informed about the theories discussed and be the judge of the correctness of said concept.

I think there is a flaw in your statement, Victor.  Maybe more than one.  You have ruled out all authorities.  Isn't that like asking everybody to go back to the beginning and work it out for  himself?  If I can see as much logic in my idea as you see in yours, there is no reason for discussion.  ...    Something goes wrong here.  It will take a better person than I to figure it out.

 

Google:  Pseudoscience consists of statements, beliefs, or practices that are claimed to be both scientific and factual but are incompatible with the scientific method. Wikipedia

 

Google:  scientific method; plural noun: scientific methods

a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

 

 

So, I do my own systematic observation, measurement and experiment.  That sets me up as an authority but no one is allowed to accept what I say.  They each have to do their own observation, measurement and experiment.  And who says the 17th century method is correct? 

 

None of that has much to do with what I set out to ask.  And I think I may be messing up what you are trying to say.  I understand what you are asking for but something is missing in the idea of decision-making.  Time out. 

[Vmedvil2]

I think there is a flaw in your statement, Victor.  Maybe more than one.  You have ruled out all authorities.  Isn't that like asking everybody to go back to the beginning and work it out for  himself?  If I can see as much logic in my idea as you see in yours, there is no reason for discussion.  ...    Something goes wrong here.  It will take a better person than I to figure it out.

 

Google:  Pseudoscience consists of statements, beliefs, or practices that are claimed to be both scientific and factual but are incompatible with the scientific method. Wikipedia

 

Google:  scientific method; plural noun: scientific methods

a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

 

 

So, I do my own systematic observation, measurement and experiment.  That sets me up as an authority but no one is allowed to accept what I say.  They each have to do their own observation, measurement and experiment.  And who says the 17th century method is correct? 

 

None of that has much to do with what I set out to ask.  And I think I may be messing up what you are trying to say.  I understand what you are asking for but something is missing in the idea of decision-making.  Time out. 

 

Basically what I am saying is this you can just tell if something is false by researching the topic, if you have enough knowledge about the subject you will know. In science there is something called Peer Review which basically says if enough people with knowledge about the subject agree on a conclusion then it is deemed scientific enough to be considered, science is ruled by mob rule saying one person agrees with you helps your case however if 50 people disagree with you and that 1 person then it is usually not a correct analysis of the information, science is  "Mob Ruled" meaning that the lesser amount of people don't get a voice they are just incorrect. If they keep their viewpoints after a greater amount of evidence or support for a given conclusion is reached then they become what we call "Cranks" on that subject. Science maybe harsh however is fair, the burden of proof is upon the new theory to prove itself not upon the old theories to stay within science which I think many science people that have a "New" theory to prove don't understand. Basically the system of science is Guilty until proven innocent rather than innocent until proven guilty.

Edited December 29, 2019 by VictorMedvil

[hazelm]

Basically what I am saying is this you can just tell if something is false by researching the topic, if you have enough knowledge about the subject you will know. In science there is something called Peer Review which basically says if enough people with knowledge about the subject agree on a conclusion then it is deemed scientific enough to be considered, science is ruled by mob rule saying one person agrees with you helps your case however if 50 people disagree with you and that 1 person then it is usually not a correct analysis of the information, science is  "Mob Ruled" meaning that the lesser amount of people don't get a voice they are just incorrect. If they keep their viewpoints after a greater amount of evidence or support for a given conclusion is reached then they become what we call "Cranks" on that subject. Science maybe harsh however is fair, the burden of proof is upon the new theory to prove itself not upon the old theories to stay within science which I think many science people that have a "New" theory to prove don't understand. Basically the system of science is Guilty until proven innocent rather than innocent until proven guilty.

It makes sense - if one can dig up the numbers.  And it came to me what was striking me as illogical.  The definition of scientific method rules itself out because those standards were established by "authorities".    But that is fine if we can get everyone to agree to accept them.  But, if everybody accepted those standards and never dared trying another method, science would be in trouble.  Especially medical science.  No?

 

Then there is "if you have enough knowledge about the subject" which gets us back to my first question.  Perhaps the answer is that forums do not count as good sources.  Unknowledgeable people read for information.  But, how do they know who on a forum is scientifically reliable?  Only your response seems to rule out all of them.  Aha!   Intuition.  :-)

 

Now, being as how it is after 9:00,  I shall listen to the videos - especially one of my favorite scientists.  :-)

[Vmedvil2]

It makes sense - if one can dig up the numbers.  And it came to me what was striking me as illogical.  The definition of scientific method rules itself out because those standards were established by "authorities".    But that is fine if we can get everyone to agree to accept them.  But, if everybody accepted those standards and never dared trying another method, science would be in trouble.  Especially medical science.  No?

 

Then there is "if you have enough knowledge about the subject" which gets us back to my first question.  Perhaps the answer is that forums do not count as good sources.  Unknowledgeable people read for information.  But, how do they know who on a forum is scientifically reliable?  Only your response seems to rule out all of them.  Aha!   Intuition.  :-)

 

Now, being as how it is after 9:00,  I shall listen to the videos - especially one of my favorite scientists.  :-)

Yes my solution is to rule them out and let known science decide if they are correct or "The people that have knowledge about the subjects" determine that, like the Physicsforums.com doesn't allow any information that is not peer reviewed and published on their site. The rules for this forum are much more relaxed than that, which then it falls to people like me and dubbel to decide that basically dubbel is the physics section of this forum's authority or "Person with knowledge about the subject".

Edited December 29, 2019 by VictorMedvil

[hazelm]

Yes my solution is to rule them out and let known science decide if they are correct or "The people that have knowledge about the subjects" determine that, like the Physicsforums.com doesn't allow any information that is not peer reviewed and published on their site. The rules for this forum are much more relaxed than that, which then it falls to people like me and dubbel to decide that basically dubbel is the physics section of this forum's authority or "Person with knowledge about the subject".

You are getting close - letting readers know who is the "authority" helps.  Yet, how do you know when one of those non-authorities / non-scientists just might be right?  Back before science really took root and stood on its own feet, another authoritative body learned the hard way that, despite what we see, the sun does not rotate around Earth and the world is not  flat and the Bible (which their own body put together) says "Thou shalt not kill".

 

Unless we give them voice, how do we know whom we are shoving aside now by requiring that they follow certain rules they do not believe are correct?   By numbers?  The majority rules?  Maybe.  Maybe not.  There is a fine line there somewhere. 

 

Hmmm?  All of you who have heard this story before, please bear with me.  My eighth grade science teacher was talking about the possibility of a nuclear bomb.  (That dates me. <g>)  She said, in effect, "Some people think they can split the atom but they are wrong.  The atom cannot be split.  The atom is the smallest unit in the universe."  Of course we took her word for it.  She was "authority".  (Point one for Victor.)  But, that said, weren't the scientists who were trying to disprove that "fact" in the minority and unbelievable?

 

I, for one, favor letting these people talk.  I also, though, require that they (and we) listen. And, they'd better put their money where their mouths are.  What I am never for is banishing anyone who disagrees with my beliefs. 

 

There is, though, a place to stop when no mutual agreement is forthcoming.  I think I'd better stop.  Carry on, Victor. And thank you for the Physics information.  I wanted that.

[hazelm]

If a paper has been Peer reviewed, it does not mean the paper will immediately become accepted fact, it just means it might plausible or interesting to readers of serious science magazines etc.  

 

To have new theories accepted I understand the controlling mob (old guard) need to die of old age. Its a bit like politics, in a progressively older population new ideas from the more optimistic may take a longer time to catch on than they did in the past. 

 

Looking at the theories of those deemed cranks, theoretical physicists, and those teaching the mainstream physics, works for me :)

Right.  We oldsters are hanging around for the sole purpose of frustrating these youngsters with their crazy ideas.  More fun in that than trying to figure out how to turn a computer on and off. 

[hazelm]

That is like letting those in charge behave like priests, many people on forums are retired science teachers.

 

Scienceforum.net is another normally well moderated forum with some extremely clever people posting. This forum has very relaxed moderators, and has to be the only forum overunitydevice would be allowed to post on. 

 

Exchemist, oceanbreeze and gahd  know a thing or two aswell. However exchemist seems to be having a holiday, maybe overunitydevice was the last straw. :(

But if we frustrate these new ones with their new ideas while the old ones silently fade away, what have you then?  Nada.  Worse, though, is those who purposely discourage the unknowing from participating because they look down on their "lessers".  Scientific American once had a very good editorial about that.  I guess it takes a lot of patience to keep things running smoothly but a variety does liven things up and keep us all on our toes.  Frustration works in both directions.

 

Dark is descending.  Nos dawch, as they say in  Wales.

[GAHD]

Just going to drop 2 cents in on the general demeanor of this turn of conversation.

Ignorant people who experiment are the purest form of scientist in my opinion. Far too many of the published articles I've read are simply taking a half dozen other articles at face value to draw their conclusions. Citations certainly have their place, but outside of raw math proofs it is often a mistake to ASSuME without doing real work. Even in the case of raw math proofs it is terribly easy to misuse an equivalence or equation and get false results; statistical manipulations are rife with this(I often call it "lies and heresy" in my tongue in cheek inner monologue).

Enlightenment can and often does come from strange places. As blatantly delusional as the mentioned OUD was I can honestly say I learned a couple of things because/despite their misapplication of things. Even lies and heresy can enlighten when you search for the underlying failure.

To me it's more important to look at why something is wrong than to simply grandstand on the wrong itself.