How about drop all Pseudoscience

[absolute1]

Let's all drop all pseudoscience and become a regular person with a regular job. Live, raise family, and die. The laws are good an acceptable, we just needs more engineers. There's really nothing to see, everything is predicted. There are quarkz in atoms, and there are solar system and galaxy. What else you want to know? you can't be as small as an atom or as large as the universe, so there isn't any business and application for you. Agree?

 

Who's with me?

[iNow]

Errmmm... No. Not at all. I couldn't be more against such a sentiment about having nothing left to learn.

[insane_alien]

see i agree with dropping psuedo science like a tonne of bricks but you are wanting us to drop ACTUAL science.

 

many of the new discoveries made will eventually have applications in the world. and who wants to know just enough to get by, i want to know everything.

[SkepticLance]

To iNow

There is plenty to learn and discover without descending to pseudoscience. Getting rid of pseudoscience means getting rid of beliefs for which there is no credible scientific evidence. It does not mean closing your mind. It does not mean failing to study and learn.

 

After all, string theory has been a art of mainstream science for a long time, and it meets most of the criteria of psudoscience. Yet it is largely tolerated. If it does not come up with a testable prediction soon, though, it will probably be dropped. At that stage, string theory will be classified as pseudoscience.

 

Yes, I agree that pseudoscience has little or nothing to contribute, apart from a massive distraction. We need a good working definition of pseudoscience, though.

[iNow]

I must not have been clear.

 

I was against not learning anything more, not supporting pseudoscience... against the suggestion that we already know all we need to.

 

If you don't know that about me by now, Lance, you haven't been paying a damn bit of attention to my posts.

 

IAs comments more closely align with what I intended.

[D H]

see i agree with dropping psuedo science like a tonne of bricks but you are wanting us to drop ACTUAL science.

For those who do not know what IA is talking about here, take a quick perusal of the posts made by the original poster. Here is a handy link to those posts. Pick and choose, but make sure you don't have any liquids of any sort in your mouth. Consider yourself warned: I hereby disclaim all responsibility for any monitors sprayed with soda.

[iNow]

DH - You can't share a search like that. The search ID in the URL is temporary and part of your personal atempt.

 

Users will have to go here instead to do what you intend:

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/search.php?do=finduser&u=16625

[YT2095]

I think he`s unaware of the difference between Existing and Living.

[mooeypoo]

I think he`s unaware of the difference between Existing and Living.

 

Or between the "Pseudo" and "Science".

[npts2020]

Well, I bet I can give you a better description of pseudoscience than you can give me of what a "regular person with a regular job" is.

[Mr Skeptic]

Let's all drop all pseudoscience

 

We could just drop all absolutes. Especially those that like absolute1 can't tell the difference between science and pseudoscience.

[gcol]

A couple of random thoughts:

 

1. I am not completely clear as to the difference between pseudoscience and speculation, except perhaps that pseudoscience can be hilarious (once correctly identified).

 

2. Since Religion was booted out, the forum has been sanitised to a degree that has diminished its imagination-provoking qualities. Pseudoscience appears to be the next target on the hit list. What will be next? I think politics should, logically go too. It is not only not science, it is barely pseudologic.

 

3. The continuation of this road may lead to the point where the answer to any question raised could be simply to refer the inquirer to the most relevant standard text, and if there is none such, then the question must obviously be in the realm of pseudoscience.

 

My opening remarks in the case for the defense, milud.

[insane_alien]

well, people speculating are open to criticism and will usually adapt their speculation to fit facts i.e. follow the scientific method.

 

psuedoscience on the other hand generally ignores reality at any and all costs and has never heard of logic.

 

speculation is very valid and has plenty of room for imagination and debate. its a poor view of science to say that it is not imaginative.

[Mr Skeptic]

The reason that pseudoscience and speculation are in the same forum is that moderators don't want to be responsible for drawing the distinction, since sometimes the line is very fine. If there were a pseudoscience only forum, there would be nothing worth seeing there and it might as well be deleted. The religion forum, while it had some value, also attracted people who think faith is more important than facts or civility, and used up all the moderator's time. The politics forum, on the other hand, is of importance because science should have a voice in politics.

[bob000555]

Might the original poster have been attempting a Modest Proposalesque satirical or even Socratic attempt to point out the stupidity of our reactions when ever someone starts a thread in Speculations and Pseudoscience?

[gcol]

Completely agree with "bob", which my post #12 sought to emphasise.

[npts2020]

Everyone could ignore the psuedoscience section of the forum but I personally rather enjoy it even if it doesn't seem to advance my scientific knowledge much.

[Phi for All]

To me, pseudoscience is usually an hypothesis that uses one or more bits to support it that have yet to be proven. Virtually all threads in Speculations & Pseudoscience ask the reader to look the other way regarding some foundational principle so they can leap to what seems like a logical conclusion.

 

I don't mind looking the other way if we're exploring a concept, but most people who start a speculative thread want their conclusions taken as seriously as the exploration. This is where speculation ends and pseudoscience begins for me.

 

I don't think we'd have as many problems with Speculations if the person starting the thread wasn't so adamant about passing over the unproven bits. It's like crossing a rope bridge over a chasm; we'd prefer if all the boards on the floor were there, instead of having these large gaps we're supposed to jump across, while the guide keeps telling us it's safe to cross.

[Bignose]

Might the original poster have been attempting a Modest Proposalesque satirical or even Socratic attempt to point out the stupidity of our reactions when ever someone starts a thread in Speculations and Pseudoscience?

 

The problem is that if left unchecked and unchallenged, it is an implicit acceptance by the forum members. And, that's not the kind of forum we want to run here.

 

In addition, I personally delve in there to try to help when I can. I try to take an approach where I ask questions so that the poster can see the flaws in their arguments. I fully admit that it doesn't always work. Ok, it rarely works. But, there have been at least 2 times I remember where we got someone turned around. There is always the hope that the person on the other end does really want to learn and take criticism and develop their idea in a correct manner. Sure, a lot of the times any attempt to reach out and help is rebuffed pretty quickly, but I figure that's what the forum is here for -- to extend the offers of help.

[Moontanman]

Everyone could ignore the psuedoscience section of the forum but I personally rather enjoy it even if it doesn't seem to advance my scientific knowledge much.

 

There is probably more knowledge gained in the pseudoscience section than any other. when you correct someone thinking about something they were sure was true it can lead to a better way of thinking. And it's fun to debunk BS too....

[Edtharan]

I see the Pseudo-science thread as a test of my knowledge and a chance for education. If I can disprove a proposition using my knowledge that is ok, but if it takes me a bit of research, or I read someone else's disproof, it adds to my knowledge.

[YT2095]

I will point out that where possible every effort is made to only put assertions in there, and that questions of enquiry (no matter how bizzare) are free to be posted in the appropriate subforum.

and it`s worth a mention that threads moved or originating in the P&S fora are not necessarily on a one way ticket to Stay in there, some prove themselves and get taken out into the main-stream science areas as well.