Spotting Pseudoscience

[DrKrettin]

24 minutes ago, Anonymous Participant said:

None. I just have a more accurate and rational definition than it rides the bandwagon

That is a pathetic answer given that you said:

36 minutes ago, Anonymous Participant said:

From my perspective I can see a lot of what mainstream refers to a legitimate science is indeed pseudoscience , and a alot of what it refers to as pseudoscience is legitimate science. 

 

[beecee]

11 hours ago, Anonymous Participant said:

I think we all need to realize that an opinion does not qualify something as pseudoscience or legitimate science, nor does a bandwagon fallacy.. From my perspective I can see a lot of what mainstream refers to a legitimate science is indeed pseudoscience , and a alot of what it refers to as pseudoscience is legitimate science. The title fo this thread is how to spot pseudoscience and I think one of the easiest ways to detect what is likley pseudoscience is if it A) forces a preconceived unproved belief as a limitation to it's conclusions, or B) contradicts logic and proved and accepted laws of science.

Please provide some evidence that what mainstream science as legitimate science is really pseudoscience. A: You can't other then to make bland religiously ID driven statements.

Please provide evidence  of what is viewed as pseudoscience is really science> A: You can't. Paranormal and Supernatural claims, beliefs, and myths are just that....There is no real evidence for any of it.

But please, do not get confused with what a scientific theory is: ie the best explanation at that time, based on empirical evidence. Obviously, as new evidence may come to light, as new further and clearer observations become evident, theories may be modified, changed or even scrapped. That's science...that's why it is the best explanation and most logical conclusions we can have.

Quote

For instance the big bang theory is clearly pseudoscience because it ignores fundamental proved laws of science and defies logic and conventional wisdom. Explosions don't create almost infinitely complex systems, they disrupt an destroy them, and if you're going to use it as an explanation of the origin of the universe you'd better realize unless you explain how the singularity came into existence and why it "chose" to explode you have actually explained nothign.. The big bang theory doesn't pass the basic smell test in science because it is quite bluntly an attempt to explain the existence of the universe within the constraints of an irrational religious belief, that there is no intelligent order int he universe and that complex intelligently ordered things can come into existence without intelligent intervention. They cannot..

That quote above is just more of your unsupported claims, based on your obvious agenda. 

Let me inform you of a few facts.

[1] A scientific theory [as I have already stated] is never really proven. It is an explanation of a particular situation, based on observational and experimental evidence, and may change over time as technology allows us to gain more accurate experiments and make better and further observations. Scientific theories do though grow in certainty over time as they continue to make successful predictions and match new observations...eg: GR.

[2] No scientific theory is all encompassing. Even GR has its zones of applicability, outside of which it is fails. eg: The Planck/quantum level.

[3] In regards to your nonsensical rantings In the above "quote" (a) The BB in scientific circles is not thought of as an explosion as is normally accepted definition of an explosion...it is quite simply an evolution of space and time from 10-43 seconds after T. (b) We do not as yet no if the universe is infinite or finite. (c) Science in general do not accept the Singularity at either the BB or BHs as a physical entity, rather a mathematical construct at which our models fail, ie the quantum/Planck level. (d) We do not know how or why the BB and the evolution of our universe/spacetime was initiated as yet...a QGT may reveal that in the future.(e) we have absolutely no evidence, zero, zilch of any hint or smell of any ID. Keep in mind that at one time, hindered by mythical ID beliefs,  they also believed that the Earth was the center of the universe. You do know that is incorrect, right? In essence it is dumb, I mean really dumb, considering how science has evolved, considering how science has offered empirical evidence to explain the universe, considering how science has pushed any need for any deity into near oblivion, to then automatically and naively invoke any form of ID in place of where science as yet does not have any explanations. This "God of the gaps" strategy  has been shown to be invalid time and time again.

To now invalidate your "quoted"claims re the BB as pseudoscience:

Evidence for the BB:

[1]Nucleosynthesis and abundance of the lighter elements (hydrogen and helium)

[2] Large scale Galactic structure.

[3]Observed expansion of the universe/spacetime.

[4] The observed CMBR or relic heat from the BB.

 

In essence then, and to put it quite bluntly, to invoke any pseudscientific and/or religious belief to explain the universe around us, is no more then and indication of some obsessive anti science agenda and/or delusions of grandeur, and then to claim that the experts with their access to 'scopes and a myriad of other state of the art equipment and the data they present, are wrong is plainly just so much hot air. On the religious side of the coin, some people are rather put out by the fact that the universe does not exist for them or indeed cares for them in any way and prefer to stay in their comfort zone, much the same way as a child not wanting to let go of his/her teddy bear.

Edited September 9, 2017 by beecee

[DrKrettin]

Nice post, but it's a shame you went to the effort, considering that AP had been suspended before we posted.

[Area54]

7 hours ago, DrKrettin said:

Nice post, but it's a shame you went to the effort, considering that AP had been suspended before we posted.

It has value in that anyone reading the thread who is "tempted" by some of AP's arguments can see them clinically demolished by just such a post.

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

Any discussion of the particulars of any theory or conjecture should take place in a separate thread

 

[beecee]

13 hours ago, DrKrettin said:

Nice post, but it's a shame you went to the effort, considering that AP had been suspended before we posted.

 That's OK...he had me on ignore anyway...at least that's what he claimed. What amazes me with these characters, is while they are so certain that mainstream is wrong, and that they and they alone have the gifted insight into the "truth", they also seem rather delusional in that claiming what they do on this or any science forum, will change anything. While forums are great for discussing and debating, they are not really a part of any academia or post or scientific methodology where they are professionally able to change the mainstream view and show the vast majority that is the mainstream, the supposed error of their ways. A task they will never and are incapable of achieving via the scientific method.

Edited September 9, 2017 by beecee

[CashlinRap]

I think what is said here is true and important to a healthy culture of spreading only verified true information, but I guess I want to give my 2 cents on why some of these points are more culturally complicated.

The reason quacks would claim the industry is trying to suppress information is because historically some systems of economy government and business will at times do really destructive and antisocial things. Whether this ever really stopped legitimate science from being published or studied is really debatable and much less likely than just the disgusting sheer destruction of food that could have been donated or destruction of other usable goods for profit or solely to disadvantage competition, but it plays into a story some people will be able to believe due to the mistrust of society or the economy.

 

I guess I think a dialogue on the cultural psychological aspects of what can make pseudoscience believable and easy to spread is worth talking about once in awhile, and I'm totally not condoning any of it but just think it is sensible to approach these matters knowing that there's a complex cultural history to pseudoscience (which is probably an entire field of social science on its own that we need to master and get under control before society suffers too much more lmfao) and at times there is maybe a real potential for some things, in some circumstances at least, that are usually used as bullshit ploys, to otherwise have instances that may be could connect that concept to being truthful. I might have screwed up the grammar there let me write a better concise sentence. In rare instances industry could be negative to society, so with false logic this is used as a scapegoat. 

 

This also connects to alternative medicine. Marijuana is a great example. There are some kids with rare seizure problems that only THC seems to fix. Since it's illegal, marijuana has been lumped in with alternative medicine in some demographics. Also, the history of why marijuana is illegal is a completely fucking racist campaign by Harry J Anslinger to make people think that a mexican plant is making people go nuts and die (cannabis got it's name of marijuana from this, and marijuana was a totally unrelated mexican plant before) 

 

Another note I want to make about alternative medicine is that lots of folk medicines are where we start researching from, because foundations of information historically are built off the first things we start testing. which is shit with totally random anecdotal connotations. I just find this really fascinating and I think it's a reason to keep in mind that a lot of people spreading pseudoscience are confused and just doing what comes natural, to observe ideas at whatever level they're functioning at and then spread shit around and try to play with those ideas. 

 

I don't want to sound like I'm defending these problems or have an understanding of where science made its perfect distinction from natural philosophy and alchemists, but just point out that I suppose the human conditions problems are also the steps to our successes as well. 

 

What interests me a lot about horticulture and ancient medicines (and not saying I believe anything because it's traditionally used, and I also think the perspective I'm presenting here is totally different from the even worse snake oil salesman advert that tried and true ancient remedies must be a cure) is that all of these plants are full of chemicals and we might not even have studies (or accessible studies) on a lot of them and their properties. So while nothing is proven about alternative medicine, I think there is a lot of potential in plant science that's untapped (which is why not destroying the environment or entire planet would be a really swell idea) 

 

 

anyways, sorry if bumping an old thread is frowned upon but I thought I might bring up these points, some of the things I mentioned are things you hear about a lot not even from scientific communities but are still things when you look up can be pretty well proven, as I don't think I specifically made any tall claims just tried to point out the complexity of our world. I guess ultimately I think if some of the reasons these points the original poster made could be addressed and confirmed by people who know science it could be easier to make average people feel like they're understood and that they are willing to listen and then maybe more complex ideas can be more accessible to them. I guess the point of a forum is to basically allow culture and people to work through that anyways 

[Bufofrog]

7 hours ago, Bill McC said:

They challenged him to fly a kite in an electrical storm, and he did it easily, as can any Universal scientist today.

There is a reasonable chance that doing so would be the last experiment the scientist ever did.

[dimreepr]

49 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

There is a reasonable chance that doing so would be the last experiment the scientist ever did.

Indeed, that's the thing about science; it's understood because correlation doesn't equal causation.

Pseudo-science/understanding, draws from a different set of rules...

On 4/13/2021 at 5:24 AM, CashlinRap said:

I think what is said here is true and important to a healthy culture of spreading only verified true information

What is true today, isn't always true tomorrow; and what is true for you, isn't always true for me...

A healthy culture accepts information for what it is, and just gets on with life... 😉

[Grogingly]

Thanks for the post!

I'm new around here (as of like 20 minutes ago) and am striving work in the research field, so seeing stuff about how to pick up on pseudoscience is extremely helpful. About a year or two ago I was trying to get a very baseline understanding of Doppler/Redshift and all of those buzzwords and got sidetracked for like 2 hours on some weird pseudoscience article. Wasn't the best time.

Anyways, since it has been a few years since the last post, does anyone have any stories about how noticing pseudoscience (in general) has helped you in your career or endeavors? Would be interested in listening

[exchemist]

5 hours ago, Grogingly said:

Thanks for the post!

I'm new around here (as of like 20 minutes ago) and am striving work in the research field, so seeing stuff about how to pick up on pseudoscience is extremely helpful. About a year or two ago I was trying to get a very baseline understanding of Doppler/Redshift and all of those buzzwords and got sidetracked for like 2 hours on some weird pseudoscience article. Wasn't the best time.

Anyways, since it has been a few years since the last post, does anyone have any stories about how noticing pseudoscience (in general) has helped you in your career or endeavors? Would be interested in listening

There is not that much pseudoscience to be found in research papers published by reputable journals, so I don’t think its existence is much of a threat to research or careers in science. Pseudoscience is much more of a curse in social interactions and of course, notoriously, in politics. Politicians not infrequently seek advantage from representing policy positions as based on science, when they are nothing of the kind. The whole business of “Intelligent [sic] Design” is a recent case in point. As are many of the various “scientific” arguments put forward to oppose the science behind climate change, or the various anti-vax stories that go round. 
 

One of the more depressing features of modern politics in the Anglophone world is how the Right has seen fit to dispute science in so many areas and to rely on Pseudoscience to attack its findings. It’s part of a long-standing tradition of suspicion of intellectuals. As my grandfather (a professor at Glasgow University) used to put it, these people seem to belong to the: “I’m thick and proud of it!” School of thought.

[Genady]

8 hours ago, Grogingly said:

anyone have any stories about how noticing pseudoscience (in general) has helped you in your career or endeavors

Perhaps irrelevant to you, but I have such a story. Very early in my life I have realized that Marxism is pseudoscience. This realization has had a profound effect on my entire life.

[dimreepr]

11 minutes ago, Genady said:

Perhaps irrelevant to you, but I have such a story. Very early in my life I have realized that Marxism is pseudoscience. This realization has had a profound effect on my entire life.

There's a huge difference between what purports to be science and what is philosophy, your realisation is neither, unless you can explain why. 

[Phi for All]

3 hours ago, Genady said:

Perhaps irrelevant to you, but I have such a story. Very early in my life I have realized that Marxism is pseudoscience. This realization has had a profound effect on my entire life.

Thanks for sharing this. I didn't think you were trying to be a philosopher, and I certainly wouldn't require you to explain it further before validating the realization. I hope being dismissed out of hand doesn't stop you from elaborating further.

[MigL]

4 hours ago, Genady said:

Very early in my life I have realized that Marxism is pseudoscience.

Is it Marxism or the corrupted implementation of it in your former homeland that led to your disillusionment.
One is an unachievable ideal, the other, an institution that corrupt, unscrupulous people use to take advantage of an ignorant population for their own gain.

[Genady]

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

Thanks for sharing this. I didn't think you were trying to be a philosopher, and I certainly wouldn't require you to explain it further before validating the realization. I hope being dismissed out of hand doesn't stop you from elaborating further.

 

12 minutes ago, MigL said:

Is it Marxism or the corrupted implementation of it in your former homeland that led to your disillusionment.
One is an unachievable ideal, the other, an institution that corrupt, unscrupulous people use to take advantage of an ignorant population for their own gain.

It is academic training in Marxism. I studied Applied Mathematics and Computer Science in the university, but classes in "Marx's theory" were required. The "theory" professors thought I did well, as shown on the lines 13, 22-24, 29, and 37 of my transcripts.