Signs of Pseudoscientist

[fafalone]

In order to qualify as science, the scientific method must be applied.

[Michael77]

I would consider science more of a what if thing.......you need to be an innovative mind....and be able to link things.....you know....

 

any way.....

 

true science is the discovery and exploration of things and ideas never before seen......the scientific method is used to solve problems.......just a thought...but what do I know....

[fafalone]

Yeah, it's a what if thing. That's part of the method. You develop an idea of how something works, then you test that idea. If it works, great, if it doesn't, your idea is wrong, and you don't set aside the observations that contradict you and keep on saying you're right.

[Michael77]

Very true.....but on that same thing.....true innovation hasn't been touched in decades......no one has had the forsight to think of something that hasn't been thought of......everything's been done....take a look at my Geology thread.....if you want the details I'll post them......but entertain that what if for about 10 minutes.....it might open your eyes.....

[Zarkov]

As far as I am concerned, pseudoscience is where the innovation comes from. I am always willing to discuss, thrown in observations, but never closed minded objections. They are totally counter productive.

 

No science is absolutely correct, and it is only fools that would stand on that floor.

[Michael77]

I'll have to disagree there.....science leaves loop holes for correction...but it is indeed flawless.....as far as anyone can acertain

 

either....the don't knowor they know....

 

very standard.......that's why they have theories....and fact....

 

but on the philisophical side of it.....perception=truth

how one percieves things to be is how they are.....and until fact sheds light on perception.....perceptions and truth will always be inaccurate

 

but that's niether here nor there

[aman]

I love innovation and discussion and mainly the willingness to bend the innovation if logic and science point it that way. A compromise can be arrived at by lgical arguments from the opposite direction. Then new innovations arise. It's a piece of work.

Just aman

[Michael77]

yes...it is that...

[ydoaPs]

A lenghty but related cut & paste.I believe Carl Sagan was the author:

A simple method for rating potentially revolutionary contributions to physics.

 

1. A -5 point starting credit.

2. 1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false.

3. 2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous.

4. 3 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent.

5. 5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful correction.

6. 5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the results of a widely accepted real experiment.

7. 5 points for each word in all capital letters (except for those with defective keyboards).

8. 5 points for each mention of "Einstein"' date=' "Hawking" or "Feynman".

9. 10 points for each claim that quantum mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).

10. 10 points for pointing out that you have gone to university, as if this were evidence of sanity.

11. 10 points for beginning the description of your theory by saying how long you have been working on it.

12. 10 points for mailing your theory to someone you don't know personally and asking them not to tell anyone else

about it, for fear that your ideas will be stolen.

13. 10 points for offering prize money to anyone who proves and/or finds any flaws in your theory.

14. 10 points for each statement along the lines of "I'm not good at maths, but my theory is conceptually right, so all I

need is for someone to express it in terms of equations".

15. 10 points for arguing that a current well-established theory is "only a theory", as if this were somehow a point against

it.

16. 10 points for arguing that while a current well-established theory predicts phenomena correctly, it doesn't explain

"why" they occur, or fails to provide a "mechanism".

17. 10 points for each favourable comparison of yourself to Einstein, or claim that special or general relativity are

fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).

18. 10 points for claiming that your work is on the cutting edge of a "paradigm shift".

19. 20 points for suggesting that you deserve a Nobel prize.

20. 20 points for each favourable comparison of yourself to Newton or claim that classical mechanics is fundamentally

misguided (without good evidence).

21. 20 points for every use of science fiction works or myths as if they were fact.

22. 20 points for defending yourself by bringing up (real or imagined) ridicule accorded to your past theories.

23. 20 points for each use of the phrase "hidebound reactionary".

24. 20 points for each use of the phrase "self-appointed defender of the orthodoxy".

25. 30 points for suggesting that a famous figure secretly disbelieved in a theory which he or she publicly supported.

(E.g., that Feynman was a closet opponent of special relativity, as deduced by reading between the lines in his

undergraduate physics textbooks.)

26. 30 points for suggesting that Einstein, in his later years, was groping his way towards the ideas you now advocate.

27. 30 points for claiming that your theories were developed by an extraterrestrial civilisation (without good evidence).

28. 40 points for comparing those who argue against your ideas to Nazis, stormtroopers, etc.

29. 40 points for claiming that the "scientific establishment" is engaged in a "conspiracy" to prevent your work from

gaining its well-deserved fame, or suchlike.

30. 40 points for comparing yourself to Galileo, suggesting that a modern-day Inquisition is hard at work on your case,

and so on.

31. 40 points for claiming that when your theory is finally appreciated, present-day science will be seen for the sham it

truly is. (30 more points for fantasising about show trials in which scientists who mocked your theories will be forced to

recant.)

32. 50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory but giving no concrete testable predictions.[/quote']

i love it

[the tree]

I'm somewhat disapointed that I joined after Zarkov was banned, I keep on finding his posts and a lot of them are very funny. (Obviously in the sense of laughing at him, not with)

[DQW]

Incidentally, the point system for crackpot rating (see above) was developed by John Baez (not Carl Sagan).

 

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

[swansont]

i love it

 

 

John Baez's Crackpot Index. He's got a copyright notice on the page, so if it isn't his, he's plagiarized it.

[BenSon]

Something to be added to that list...

100 points-Claiming that they are a phychic channeling any great scientist. *shudder*

 

~Scott

[swansont]

Incidentally' date=' the point system for crackpot rating (see above) was developed by John Baez (not Carl Sagan).

 

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html[/quote']

 

Oops. I missed this the last time around. Hence the redundant post.