What is the difference between theories and pseudoscience?

[ajb]

Facts are not allowed in science, unless you religiously obey current science.Yet I am stricter than science, I don't allow sci-fi explanations in my theories.

 

I tend to be very careful when using the word "fact" in science. In part that is why I put the " " in place. Things evolve and ideas change. The key point is that everything is based on evidence. Exactly what that evidence is and how reliable it is is always going to be open to discussion. This is when religion and to a large extent pseudoscience really differers.

 

 

Anyway, I think you have done enough self-promotion in this thread.

Edited September 28, 2011 by ajb

[swansont]

Exactly! And this is the difference between science, and Pseudo science. Science has become a religion that has to be defended. The big bang is a religion. Neutrinos travelling faster than light create murmurs that are religions. Science is a religion based on the explanations which are incorrect.

Science relies on evidence and models. A claim that science is religion is basically an assertion that there is no evidence to support the theory and/or the model has to be taken on faith. That's trivially wrong for the example provided

 

If you want to take down a theory or at least force it to be modified, find out where it fails to explain or predict phenomena and/or find where it predicts phenomena that cannot be observed (assuming the capability exists and it has been thoroughly attempted). If you aren't doing that, any discussion becomes just so much blather.

[Pincho Paxton]

I tend to be very careful when using the word "fact" in science. In part that is why I put the " " in place. Things evolve and ideas change. The key point is that everything is based on evidence. Exactly what that evidence is and how reliable it is is always going to be open to discussion. This is when religion really differers.

 

 

Anyway, I think you have done enough self-promotion in this thread.

 

Alright forget my theory. What is science currently based on that hasn't been found yet...

 

Warped space time

Gravitons

Higgs Boson

Dark Matter

Singularity

Nuclear Fusion (mathematics no longer works)

Particle Wave Duality

Action at a distance

Time travel

Infinite black holes

The arrow of time

waves in a vacuum

 

Most of it is down to pure imagination, or has no explanation at all.

[mississippichem]

Science isn't fact based. I have explained how flow works just like attraction. Nobody want to hear it, but its a fact.

In science, you are not the judge of what is fact. Your peers are. It is your job to present your ideas to your peers and in turn they will attempt to poke holes in your idea in the hopes that it will be definitively overturned or confirmed. This is scientific method 101

 

People get angry about it, but its a fact. I'm not allowed to talk about it in a science thread, but its a fact.

You've yet to present any science in any of your numerous speculations. Pretty diagrams of bubbles and igloos don't cut it. You must embrace mathematics if you are to expect anyone in the physical science (namely physics) community to embrace your ideas. Science is hard. That's why so few are successful at it. It requires above average intelligence, obsessive dedication, long hours, tears, and blood.

 

I got banned from many sites in 2004 for talking about a bubble around our Galaxy. It was a fact. It has been found. In 2005 I talked about our Universe having a flow towards one end, and more bubbles in our galaxy. More arguments. In 2006 I explained how snowflakes are created from gravity, and the kissing problem, and how nature results in a hexagonal transformation so that humans have the snowflake shape etc. Another locked thread. Man makes his first cellular life-form, and calls it the Snowflake.

 

Seriously!? So are your really positing that you are the only true scientist in the community of millions of scientists? You might want to rethink that. If after a long pondering you still believe this to be true then you are in for a short career. I mean no offense. This is just true and I imagine every PhD here on SFN agrees with me.

 

Snow flakes are not created from gravity. This is below physics/chemistry 101 and is demonstrably false.

 

Wikipedia: snow flake

 

 

Facts are not allowed in science, unless you religiously obey current science.Yet I am stricter than science, I don't allow sci-fi explanations in my theories.

 

You're lack of ability to balance units or even carry out the most rudimentary of calculations does not lend itself to this statement being taken seriously.

[Pincho Paxton]

In science, you are not the judge of what is fact. Your peers are. It is your job to present your ideas to your peers and in turn they will attempt to poke holes in your idea in the hopes that it will be definitively overturned or confirmed. This is scientific method 101

 

 

You've yet to present any science in any of your numerous speculations. Pretty diagrams of bubbles and igloos don't cut it. You must embrace mathematics if you are to expect anyone in the physical science (namely physics) community to embrace your ideas. Science is hard. That's why so few are successful at it. It requires above average intelligence, obsessive dedication, long hours, tears, and blood.

 

 

 

Seriously!? So are your really positing that you are the only true scientist in the community of millions of scientists? You might want to rethink that. If after a long pondering you still believe this to be true then you are in for a short career. I mean no offense. This is just true and I imagine every PhD here on SFN agrees with me.

 

Snow flakes are not created from gravity. This is below physics/chemistry 101 and is demonstrably false.

 

Wikipedia: snow flake

 

 

 

 

You're lack of ability to balance units or even carry out the most rudimentary of calculations does not lend itself to this statement being taken seriously.

 

Yeah.. snowflakes, and gravity. Just the fact that you use the proof of my idea, and don't know it shows how far out science is.

[swansont]

Science isn't fact based. I have explained how flow works just like attraction. Nobody want to hear it, but its a fact. People get angry about it, but its a fact. I'm not allowed to talk about it in a science thread, but its a fact. I got banned from many sites in 2004 for talking about a bubble around our Galaxy. It was a fact. It has been found. In 2005 I talked about our Universe having a flow towards one end, and more bubbles in our galaxy. More arguments. In 2006 I explained how snowflakes are created from gravity, and the kissing problem, and how nature results in a hexagonal transformation so that humans have the snowflake shape etc. Another locked thread. Man makes his first cellular life-form, and calls it the Snowflake.

 

Facts are not allowed in science, unless you religiously obey current science.Yet I am stricter than science, I don't allow sci-fi explanations in my theories.

 

You can "explain" all you want, but if you don't fulfill the obligations of predictability, falsifiability and evidence, it's simply not science.

 

Yeah.. snowflakes, and gravity. Just the fact that you use the proof of my idea, and don't know it shows how far out science is.

 

!

Moderator Note

Let's discuss specific ideas in their own threads, and the general differences here

[Pincho Paxton]

You can "explain" all you want, but if you don't fulfill the obligations of predictability, falsifiability and evidence, it's simply not science.

 

 

 

!

Moderator Note

Let's discuss specific ideas in their own threads, and the general differences here

 

I understand what you are saying. What I am saying is that proof is so difficult in science when the maths is changed into words, and that words that get passed along the chain effect the science in a circular fashion. Like G, and M are related. If you get the description of G wrong you search for a Higgs Boson. Another description, and you search for the Aether. Proof is in what you find, but if you don't bother to look for it you are stuck. So when it comes to talking about science it is best to use words based on observation. I observe water, and have never observed an attractive force. All of the attractive forces are invisible, so in observation I go with the visible version of water. Words are best left to visible structures.Water rains down, water rises as clouds. Gravity goes down, gravity rises as magnetism. It works just fine. Proof is in observation.

Edited September 28, 2011 by Pincho Paxton

[swansont]

I understand what you are saying. What I am saying is that proof is so difficult in science when the maths is changed into words, and that words that get passed along the chain effect the science in a circular fashion. Like G, and M are related. If you get the description of G wrong you search for a Higgs Boson. Another description, and you search for the Aether. Proof is in what you find, but if you don't bother to look for it you are stuck. So when it comes to talking about science it is best to use words based on observation. I observe water, and have never observed an attractive force. All of the attractive forces are invisible, so in observation I go with the visible version of water. Words are best left to visible structures.Water rains down, water rises as clouds. Gravity goes down, gravity rises as magnetism. It works just fine. Proof is in observation.

 

First of all, real science isn't done with changing math to words — in the world of real science, the math stays. That allows for a much more precise exchange of information. It is best to use equations; that leaves the smallest opportunity for the ambiguity inherent in words.

 

Second of all, if you have never seen the effect of an attractive force with water than you are doing a lousy job of observation. Round water drops, the meniscus when in a container and bugs walking on water are all demonstrations of an attractive force in water, which manifests itself in surface tension. You can't see the force itself, but nobody claimed you could. The force is something in the model that we get from the things we can observe and measure — positions and time, giving us speeds and accelerations, and along with masses it allows us to find a force.

[Pincho Paxton]

First of all, real science isn't done with changing math to words — in the world of real science, the math stays. That allows for a much more precise exchange of information. It is best to use equations; that leaves the smallest opportunity for the ambiguity inherent in words.

 

Second of all, if you have never seen the effect of an attractive force with water than you are doing a lousy job of observation. Round water drops, the meniscus when in a container and bugs walking on water are all demonstrations of an attractive force in water, which manifests itself in surface tension. You can't see the force itself, but nobody claimed you could. The force is something in the model that we get from the things we can observe and measure — positions and time, giving us speeds and accelerations, and along with masses it allows us to find a force.

 

Science isn't about changing maths to words, and then you post examples of science as words...

 

None of those are attractive forces, and again they are all invisible. Water drops.. bonding chains from overlapping into negative mass. Bugs walking on water, gravity pressing on the surface of the water causing bonding chains. That's what I mean, you use G as attraction, and all of your words go off the rail.

Edited September 28, 2011 by Pincho Paxton

[swansont]

Science isn't about changing maths to words, and then you post examples of science as words...

 

This is a discussion board. By and large, science isn't being done here. I hope nobody has an illusions about that. Science is being explained here, mainly to interested amateur- and non-scientists, but also to students and to professionals looking outside their field. I can guarantee you, if we were doing science, there would be a lot more math. But since there are those who would not understand what [math]F=-\nabla{U}[/math] means as an answer to a simple mechanics situation, we explain in words instead.

 

 

None of those are attractive forces, and again they are all invisible. Water drops.. bonding chains from overlapping into negative mass. Bugs walking on water, gravity pressing on the surface of the water causing bonding chains. That's what I mean, you use G as attraction, and all of your words go off the rail.

 

I gave a recipe for how you can advance your ideas as science. Hand-waving wasn't on the list. You say it's not from an attractive force, but you give no example of where this model is actually wrong. The thing is, I can test the model I have. I can e.g. add some detergent to the water and reduce the surface tension, and it will behave as the model predicts — some things that sat on top will now sink, and the beading-up will be different. And these effects can be quantified, which adds precision to the model.

 

You also give no example, and certainly no quantitative model, of what you mean by negative mass, or how gravity is causing bonding chains. Water forms droplets in freefall, i.e. a zero-g environment. That's a test of the model. Does yours pass this kind of test? How does gravity explain an effect that can happen when gravity isn't present?

[qijino1236]

Is science always defined by the scientific method?

What is the format for the big bang theory in the scientific method for steps 3-8? ....

1. Define a question - Is the big bang real?

2. Gather info and resources....I observed that many believe in the big bang theory.

.....

3. Form an explanatory hypothesis <---what would 1(or more) hypotheses be?

4. Test the hypothesis by performing an experiment and collecting data in a reproducible manner<--what would these be?

5. Analyze the data<-.....?

6. Interpret the data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis<-.....?

7. Publish results<-.....?

8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists)<-.....?

 

http://theotheri.wor...tific-question/

 

1. Define a question - Is god real?

2. Gather info and resources....I observed that many believe in the god . I observed that the meaning of god

is different for many, many, many people.

.....

3. Form an explanatory hypothesis <---what would 1(or more) hypotheses be?... god is real.

4. Test the hypothesis by performing an experiment and collecting data in a reproducible manner<--what would these be?

5. Analyze the data<-.....?

6. Interpret the data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis<-.....?

7. Publish results<-.....?

8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists)<-.....?

 

1. Define a question - Is love real?

2. Gather info and resources....I observed that many people including me believe in love. I observed that the meaning of love is different for many, many, many people. I am not sure but I think god and love are synoymns

.....

3. Form an explanatory hypothesis <--- Love and god are synonyms

What would 1(or more) hypotheses be?

4. Test the hypothesis by performing an experiment and collecting data in a reproducible manner<--I guess the test would be that I feel love. ...but is that really what step 4 means?

5. Analyze the data<-.....?

6. Interpret the data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis<-.....?

7. Publish results<-.....?

8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists)<-.....?

 

1. Define a question - Does 2=2

2. Gather info and resources....I observed that many people including me believe that 2=2.

.....

3. Form an explanatory hypothesis <--- 2 equals 2

4. Test the hypothesis by performing an experiment and collecting data in a reproducible manner<-- how do I test this?

5. Analyze the data<-.....?

6. Interpret the data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis<-.....?

7. Publish results<-.....?

8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists)<-.....?

 

I guess my main question is what has been done in steps 4-8 concerning the Big bang theory?

Edited September 29, 2011 by qijino1236

[Ringer]

Pincho, if water doesn't attract why can plants use capillary action to move water upwards against gravity?

[mississippichem]

Pincho, if water doesn't attract why can plants use capillary action to move water upwards against gravity?

 

Pincho has been banned as per his request.

[Ringer]

Pincho has been banned as per his request.

 

Well, I declare myself the winner. Bartender, a round for everyone.