What Is Pseudoscience? (Scientific American)

by jp1692 13 Replies latest members private

• 

  jp1692

  What Is Pseudoscience? (Scientific American)
  
  Recently, we've had a nice increase in thread topics discussing the recovery process after our leaving the cult. One of the ongoing difficulties that many of us former cult members have faced is that we never really learned how to think critically. That is in itself a huge subject (I wrote about this very subject just a couple of days ago in another thread here.)
  
  A great way to start developing our critical thinking abilities and learn some useful skills in the process is to learn to think scientifically. A relatively easy to begin that is to learn to distinguishing between science and pseudoscience. For someone who hasn’t given that much though, this can be more difficult that it initially seems.
  
  In this short, but very insightful essay from 2011, Michael Shermer help us to learn the differences in a very practical way.

  • What Is Pseudoscience? (Scientific American)

  
  Here is a short excerpt from the essay:
  
  “We can demarcate science from pseudoscience less by what science is and more by what scientists do. Science is a set of methods aimed at testing hypotheses and building theories. If a community of scientists actively adopts a new idea and if that idea then spreads through the field and is incorporated into research that produces useful knowledge reflected in presentations, publications, and especially new lines of inquiry and research, chances are it is science.”
  
  Enjoy!
  
  jp
  
  
• 

  waton

  . Science is a set of methods aimed at testing hypotheses and building theories. If a community of scientists actively adopts a new idea and if that idea then spreads through the field and is incorporated into research that produces useful knowledge reflected in presentations, publications, and especially new lines of inquiry and research, chances are it is science.” bold added.

  What that means then is that any "pseudo science" theory, is not only theoretical but could potentially develop to be accepted. There are still fighters against general relativity.

  recommend sciforums. amateur astronomy, alternative theories, Pseudoscience.

  http://www.sciforums.com/forums/astronomy-exobiology-cosmology.6/
  
• 

  waton

  pseudo science examples from sciforums.

  There is a character "nebel" there and claims that:

  Time and energy are eternal , contradicting Einstein! see "Alma" under alternative theories

  That the Earth is special, all 10, fingers, 10 000 light seconds. "doing the numbers on No.1" in pseudo science

  orbits can be found without mass, just by radius "Jupiter velocities cancel" at Astronomy. ex, cosmology

  has > 30 000 views. figure.
• 

  Phizzy

  One does have to be careful, even what appears to be solid research, and appears to be Peer Reviewed can be Pseudo Science.

  I forget exactly what I was researching, but came across a Hypothesis that seemed solidly backed by many Scientists, what set alarm bells going off in my mind was that though a very well presented Paper, it had never been published in the recognized way.

  Upon looking at the qualifications etc of the Scientists who backed it, they all worked for Companies that funded research that would back the Hypothesis. Pseudo science, but it would fool the unwary.
• 

  LoveUniHateExams

  The clue's in the name - pseudoscience is anything that falsely claims to be science.

  One example is the gender wage gap that's so often spouted by feminists and others. It's the idea that men get paid more than women because ... sexism.

  What people have done is tally up gross earnings for men and gross earnings for women and then found an average for both sexes ... oh no! The male avg is higher than the female avg! This can only mean sexism due to the Patriarchy.

  Er, not quite. It doesn't take into account differences in male and female career choices, avg hours worked, maternity and pregnancy leave, etc.
  
• 

  Wake Me Up Before You Jo-Ho

  @LoveUniHateExams: "The clue's in the name - pseudoscience is anything that falsely claims to be science."

  That's true, and it's easy to identify it as such when we're on the outside looking in at something already labelled as pseudoscience. The issue may be that those perpetuating these anti-scientific methods and myths are not just misleading others, but are also self-deluding in the process.

  Consider what Princeton University historian of science, Michael D. Gordin wrote in his book, The Pseudoscience Wars: "No one in the history of the world has ever self-identified as a pseudoscientist. There is no person who wakes up in the morning and thinks to himself, ‘I’ll just head into my pseudolaboratory and perform some pseudoexperiments to try to confirm my pseudotheories with pseudofacts.'"

  @LoveUniHateExams: "It's the idea that men get paid more than women because ... sexism." I know - ridiculous and completely under researched by those clinging to the current feminist's dogma of equity. You and I had a great discussion about that here: https://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/5449107670827008/men-women-equal?page=3

  I'm not sure the gender-pay gap commotion falls under the category of pseudoscience, though. Seems more like a spurious ideology, if anything.
• 

  LoveUniHateExams

  Hi Wake Me Up - thanks for the link to the other thread.

  I'm not sure the gender-pay gap commotion falls under the category of pseudoscience - yeah, you're right.

  But third-wave feminists and others use pseudoscience or bad science to support the gender pay gap.
  
  
• 

  OrphanCrow

  An example of pseudoscience is Christian Science.

  Science has nothing at all to do with the beliefs or practices of this particular cult that was started in the late 19th C. Yet it lays claim to being "science"

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Science

  *a tiny little trivia item about Christian Science: Ellen Degeneres was raised in that cult
• 

  jp1692

  waton: What that means then is that any "pseudo science" theory, is not only theoretical but could potentially develop to be accepted.

  No, it specifically does NOT mean that "any" theory or hypothesis ... "could potentially develop to be accepted."

  First of all, when scientists use the word theory, they have a very specific meaning in mind that is significantly different from common, ordinary usage.

  • Click here to see brief definitions of: fact, hypothesis, theory and law as scientists use these terms (National Center for Science Education).

  Next, there are countless commonly promoted ideas which are pseudoscientific and which will never, ever be considered by scientists. For example, consider astrology. Although many people follow this very ancient belief system, it is fundamentally flawed for many reasons. One being that it attempts to predict terrestrial events and human behaviors based on a two-dimensional interpretation of our three-dimensional universe. As a belief, it quite literally lacks depth and is based on an primitive, ignorant understanding of physical reality.
  

  In his essay, Shermer wasn't suggesting that the door be opened to considering any idea and all ideas no matter how ridiculous. He was trying to help us understand that the boundary between what is presently accepted as science and what is not is perhaps not as clearly demarcated as some people would believe.

  That doesn't mean all ideas are equally relevant or worthy of our consideration. Many aren't worth any consideration at all and quite a few are simply ridiculous.
  

  Or, as Neil deGrasse Tyson recently quipped, "Yup, the rumor is true. Flat Earthers have supporters all around the globe!"

  
• 

  jp1692

  Wake-me: The issue may be that those perpetuating these anti-scientific methods and myths are not just misleading others, but are also self-deluding in the process.

  Yes. And as formerly deluded people, it is really important that we learn to overcome these delusions and biases. It's surprisingly difficult even if and when we really work at it. Confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance are two very stubbornly pernicious traits to overcome.
  

  I have found that we have to actively seek out disconfirming ideas and beliefs.
  

  "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself — and you are the easiest person to fool." - Richard Feynman, an American physicist and generally really smart guy.