Mr H2O
|
Joined: 10/31/2006
Msg: 1 | |
| Pseudoscience - knowledge which masquerades as science
Posted: 3/25/2007 10:00:58 AM | Pseudoscience usually lacks the carefully controlled experiments we expect.
The pursuit of scientific knowledge usually involves :
a.) elements of intuition and guesswork
b.) experiments which do not always test a theory adequately
c.) experimental results which can be incorrectly interpreted or even wrong.
The best known are the "discoveries" of N-rays, polywater, and cold fusion.
There are countless items that science has yet to explain in concrete terms because it
hasn't evolved to a point where it can measure them or quantify them in some way.
Why are so many people so easily duped into believing things which aren't real ?
Is it because less and less people actually use critical thinking in their daily lives ?
Marketing and media hype seem to win people over far too often.
Example :
Ivory Soap - "so pure it floats"
The term "pure" is meaningless and it floats because it has air bubbles beaten into it. | |
|
| Pseudoscience - knowledge which masquerades as science
Posted: 3/25/2007 2:37:05 PM | | It takes a lot of specialized knowledge to understand some things which takes significant resources to acquire. Take for example quantum theory. Some of the ideas are so strange that they are counterintuitive, but are they any less strange than some so called "paranormal" phenomena? The average person is neither going to have the ability nor the inclination to understand something like quantum theory.Most people rely on the "experts" to tell them what to believe. The problem is they don't know which experts are credible. | |
|
| Pseudoscience - knowledge which masquerades as science
Posted: 3/25/2007 3:31:27 PM |
Because people typically believe what they want to believe.
Ding Ding Ding!
I agree completely.
Many people maintain their objectivity, however. I believe many things that I don't want to believe. Ugly truths over beautiful lies I always say. | |
|
| Pseudoscience - knowledge which masquerades as science
Posted: 3/25/2007 9:55:42 PM | Ditto on the last sentence, HG, and sometimes I think these threads should be hijacked to the more interesting direction anyway.
Most of the people who believe the pseudoscience I find have little real science understanding. That is not such a bad thing as long as they are open to learning, but by in large they close their minds to it because they were taught it in school.
But once an awhile you do see some pseudoscience hit mainstream and become more proven. Art Bell wrote a book about the coming global superstorm and his beliefs about this planet. It was scoffed at for years. Years later I see a PBS NOVA special which shows the planet flipping its poles every ten thousand years and I have heard Art talk about that for years tied into his theories and beliefs about the earth.
Ditto with folk medicine. A lot of it just has not been researched yet or wont be because not enough profit potential is there. Oatmeal was just considered "roughage" by grandmas and now there is science that it has enzymes enhancing properties that encourage digestive health.
There are countless items that science has yet to explain in concrete terms because it
hasn't evolved to a point where it can measure them or quantify them in some way.
Or the profit potential. I think this affects a lot of the foods and herbs. It is amazing how much the media does misrepresent things. Orange juice sells like crazy because of vit C yet a medium potato has 40% of ones vit C and I dont see anyone drinking potato juice. | |
|
| Pseudoscience - knowledge which masquerades as science
Posted: 3/25/2007 10:59:59 PM | | I don't know if I personally would consider the folk medicine or Art Bell's poles as pseudoscience, but that's just me I guess. When I think of pseudoscience, I think of something that is dressed up to look like science but is surrounded by false claims and bad science. The first examples which come to my mind are "the Secret" (a movie I just watched) and Intelligent Design. They both claim support from science and scientists, but neither would ever dream of following the scientific method. | |
|
| Pseudoscience - knowledge which masquerades as science
Posted: 3/26/2007 2:36:34 AM | Then I would probably say you do not know what pseudoscience is. Arts theories and believes flew in the face of conventional science for years. But then real science caught up. Note the testability requirement of the description posted below.
It is the same reason I mention oatmeal and grandmas. It was knowledge before but maybe considered more of midwives knowledge or grandmas knowledge or maybe evn nearing folk medicine. Pseudoscience does not mean it can not become real science, by in large the majority of it is simply untested.
But the stuff that does fly in the face of facts, the already tested science, either needs to find a better way to be tested or more often than not it is just BS.
Pseudoscience
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Phrenology is regarded today as a classic example of pseudoscience.Pseudoscience is any body of knowledge, methodology, belief, or practice that claims to be scientific but does not follow the scientific method.[1] Pseudosciences may appear scientific, but they do not adhere to the testability requirement of the scientific method[2] and are often in conflict with current scientific consensus.
The term pseudoscience appears to have been first used in 1843[3] as a combination of the Greek root pseudo, meaning false, and the Latin scientia, meaning knowledge or a field of knowledge. The term has negative connotations, because it is used to indicate that subjects so labeled are inaccurately or deceptively portrayed as science.[4] Accordingly, those labeled as practicing or advocating a "pseudoscience" normally reject this classification.
As it is taught in certain introductory science classes, pseudoscience is any subject that appears superficially to be scientific or whose proponents state is scientific but nevertheless contravenes the testability requirement of the scientific method.[5] Professor Paul DeHart Hurd[6] argued that a large part of gaining scientific literacy is being able to distinguish science from pseudo-science such as astrology, quackery, the occult, and superstition.[7] Certain introductory survey classes in science take careful pains to delineate the objections scientists and skeptics have to practices that make direct claims contradicted by the scientific discipline in question.[8]
Beyond the initial introductory analyses offered in science classes, there is some epistemological disagreement about whether it is possible to distinguish "science" from "pseudoscience" in a reliable and objective way.[9]
Pseudosciences may be characterised by the use of vague, exaggerated or untestable claims, over-reliance on confirmation rather than refutation, lack of openness to testing by other experts, and a lack of progress in theory development
Can't comment about the secrete DVD, I'll see if Netflix has it if I remember. Intelligent Design I think was the invention of a very clever mind, perhaps a lawyer, to get the Biblical Standards taught in school. I don't claim much knowledge about that ID specifically but it does not seem like pseudoscience to want to teach the best selling book in all of humankinds history to kids. It should be a topic of conversation in a so called "institution of learning" because it is a book of knowledge and maybe more importantly, wisdom, something our society is definitely lacking in recent years.
I remember my gradeschool teacher teaching us "Creationism" and it was fine then. I fail to see why it would not be fine in todays schools. But they also do not have FLAGS which we had in gradeschool and they did not recite the Pledge of Allegiance (until we reacted to 9-11-01). Why can't we lead with knowledge and wisdom instead of being reduced to nearly an over-evolutionalized monkey who, if he is lucky enough to remember, will react with knowledge and wisdom? | |
|
Mr H2O
|
Joined: 10/31/2006
Msg: 7 | |
| |
| |
| Pseudoscience - knowledge which masquerades as science
Posted: 3/26/2007 4:16:02 PM | That is your opinion, msg 11. I think whether or not it is a science is irrelevant. It is popular enough so it should be taught. I ask you is Grammar a science? Is Volleyball? Creative Writing? Is Current Events?
I was taught all those in school and more. They are not sciences in and of themselves so shall we ban teaching them as well? It is very much something all kids will encounter sooner or later in life. Having some decent facts or at least a basic smattering of background info is invaluable later in life. Isn't that what school is for?
A local thought comes rocketting to my mind. Who was it on here who said "A mind is like parachute it must be open to function?" ... I think it fits well right here right now.
Wikipedia isn't exactly "the" Hard Science Website and may cause believe
some items that aren't completely proven out.
I agree. So if you're gonna dis my choice pick another one, a better one. I won't mind, I'm not fragile nor constricted by dogmatic inflexibility, I'll debate it from any definition of pseudoscience YOU WANT because this probably will help enlighten some others out there. Too few understand what science is and how it is used in everyday practice so any discussion on this topic will undoubtedly help some. I spent the majority of my day today in a specialty library designated to one specific branch of science. Researching. Some definition was better than no definition and wikipedia came up as the first two entries when I did the search. But I also wanted the average person cruising these forums to be able to understand and wikipedia seems popular here. So when in Rome I do as the Romans do.
You started the thread, lead on, Sir. What is the definition you prefer? | |
|
| |
Mr H2O
|
Joined: 10/31/2006
Msg: 11 | |
| Pseudoscience - knowledge which masquerades as science
Posted: 3/26/2007 7:12:23 PM | 10 widely-held, yet incorrect ideas about the nature of science.
Myth 1: Hypotheses Become Theories Which Become Laws
Myth 2: A Hypothesis is an Educated Guess
Myth 3: A General and Universal Scientific Method Exists
Myth 4: Evidence Accumulated Carefully Will Result in Sure Knowledge
Myth 5: Science and its Methods Provide Absolute Proof
Myth 6: Science Is Procedural More Than Creative
Myth 7: Science and its Methods Can Answer All Questions
Myth 8. Scientists are Particularly Objective
Myth 9: Experiments are the Principle Route to Scientific Knowledge
Myth 10: All Work in Science is Reviewed to Keep the Process Honest.
The National Science Education Standards strongly suggests that school science
must give students an opportunity to experience science authentically,
free of the legends, misconceptions and idealizations inherent in the myths
about the nature of the scientific enterprise.
http://www.bluffton.edu/~bergerd/NSC_111/TenMyths.html
http://www.chem1.com/acad/sci/pseudosci.html
| |
|
| Pseudoscience - knowledge which masquerades as science
Posted: 3/26/2007 11:39:11 PM |
Then I would probably say you do not know what pseudoscience is.
written right after I gave two perfect examples of pseudoscience and mentioned they wouldn't use the scientific method, which fits the definition you posted.
I don't claim much knowledge about that ID specifically but it does not seem like pseudoscience to want to teach the best selling book in all of humankinds history to kids. It should be a topic of conversation in a so called "institution of learning" because it is a book of knowledge and maybe more importantly, wisdom, something our society is definitely lacking in recent years.
so you believe that books that sell well = science? You're awesome.
and a book that preaches of intolerance, lies, promotes slavery, wickedness, sexism, etc etc is a book of wisdom? Sorry, wrong.
I remember my gradeschool teacher teaching us "Creationism" and it was fine then. I fail to see why it would not be fine in todays schools.
It is fine in schools, as an elective or in philosophy class or something. But its not fine to teach nonscience in science class.
They are not sciences in and of themselves so shall we ban teaching them as well?
Those subjects can be taught in whatever subjects are appropriate for them. But we save science for things like...science class.
Why can't we lead with knowledge and wisdom instead of being reduced to nearly an over-evolutionalized monkey who, if he is lucky enough to remember, will react with knowledge and wisdom?
We are leading with knowledge and wisdom more and more each day - but we lose that wisdom if we think things like oh maybe god just put fossils here to make us scratch our heads. | |
|
| Pseudoscience - knowledge which masquerades as science
Posted: 3/27/2007 5:17:44 AM |
That is your opinion, msg 11. I think whether or not it is a science is irrelevant. It is popular enough so it should be taught. I ask you is Grammar a science? Is Volleyball? Creative Writing? Is Current Events?
Grammar,Volleyball, Creative writing, and current events are not taught in science.
Popularity is not grounds for something being taught as science. Unless horoscope theory should be taught in astronomy classes now? | |
|
| Pseudoscience - knowledge which masquerades as science
Posted: 3/27/2007 5:39:50 AM |
That is your opinion, msg 11. I think whether or not it is a science is irrelevant. It is popular enough so it should be taught. I ask you is Grammar a science? Is Volleyball? Creative Writing? Is Current Events?
.
Well, it shouldn't be taught in a science class. It belongs with religion and mythology. | |
|
| Pseudoscience - knowledge which masquerades as science
Posted: 3/27/2007 10:39:17 AM | Frankly, it should not be " knowledge which masquerades as science ".
Instead , it should be " wishfull thinking " which masquerades as science.
Science, is the practice of verifying a hypothesis through experimentation.
Pseudoscience, is the practice of verifying a presumption through selective observation.
A real scientist has no problem with rejecting a hypothesis when it's been empirically shown to be false.
A pseudo-scientist just keeps thinking up more experiments, hoping to find one which will agree with his opinion.
There is a great deal of things which we assume to be proven and true, which are in fact nothing but pure prejudiced wishfull thinking. | |
|
Mr H2O
|
Joined: 10/31/2006
Msg: 16 | |
| Pseudoscience - knowledge which masquerades as science
Posted: 3/27/2007 3:08:40 PM | Abandon the word hypothesis altogether in Scientific endeavors.
Use terms such as speculative law or speculative theory.
With evidence, generalizing hypotheses may become laws
and speculative theories become theories,
but under no circumstances do theories become laws.
A hypothesis during a laboratory experience is prediction.
There is no universal scientific method -no research method is applied universally .
Scientists approach and solve problems with imagination, creativity,
prior knowledge and perseverance.
The same methods used by all problem-solvers.
Non-experimental techniques can advance knowledge.
Many fundamental discoveries in astronomy are based
on extensive observations rather than experiments.
Copernicus and Kepler changed our view of the solar system using
observational evidence derived from lengthy and detailed observations .
Scientists formulate laws and theories that are supposed to hold true in all places
and for all time but there is the problem of induction.
It is impossible to secure all relevant facts for all time, past, present and future.
| |
|
| Pseudoscience - knowledge which masquerades as science
Posted: 3/27/2007 4:01:45 PM |
Scientists approach and solve problems with imagination, creativity,
prior knowledge and perseverance.
The same methods used by all problem-solvers.
Do we dare to dream?
Imagination. Creativity.
The differences between "Science" and "Pseudoscience" is a very thin line indeed.
Almost a judgement call. Maybe judgement based upon the ability to imagine.
Or even to create. At least to observe. Of course we can only see what our minds are able to comprehend. | |
|
| |
| Pseudoscience - knowledge which masquerades as science
Posted: 3/27/2007 7:27:47 PM | That depends how good looking she is, of course.
It is fine in schools, as an elective or in philosophy class or something. But its not fine to teach nonscience in science class.
Well, it shouldn't be taught in a science class. It belongs with religion and mythology.
Points made. Logically of course it makes sense but it is not pragmatic. And if the worst thing my culture did was to mislabel Creationism As Science to get it taught in school then I would be extremely proud of my culture. Just think of it as a test of the child's mind -- eventually, if they are using the scientific methods, they will trace it back far enough and realize it is not proven. Until then the benefit is clear -- it is teaching a body of knowledge.
Just because you can not walk up to God and say "Did you create the universe Monday morning and rest on Sunday?" and have him say "Yes" it does not pull away validity from the fact that prayer works. Science has tested it and even for those who do not believe in it Prayer definitely works. It does not take away validity of the Bible being the oldest, most respected (and most misunderstood/misquoted) book in all of mankind's history. That alone is history.
Technically, I agree it should be properly labeled as history and taught as religion but if our world is so twisted we can't have the bible's creationism taught in school yet we can have Coke machines making corporate fat cats richer while the kids get early onset osteoporosis and early onset arthritis ...etc...etc....ad nauseum.... then I am just fine with Creationism being relabeled or mislabeled as Intelligent Design and taught as that. It's important to know.
Mr H2O, the second link closed down the link on homeopathy, I wanted to read that. So is this latest spew another copy and paste from another website?
I never thought Ivory was pure but at the same time their claim that it is unpure because of air I find lacking in a common sense approach. Its not like air hurts the human body. It was just media hype and to take advertising and misconstrue it as science only shows bad judgment to these eyes. Or someone who wants to make a point at the point of hurting their own credibility.
It's not Ivory soap that threatens to harm people now is it?
Spending money on bogus medical treatments or fake "faith" healers could be very detrimental. More than that what concerns me is people learning this habit of bad judgement and it becoming habit. Of course if someone is dying and they have the funds available and everything else has failed they might try a questionable healer because the money sure won't be coming with them to the casket. But to be duped and live a life unaware of how to seperate fact from fiction is the biggest danger of all.
I found The Secret DVD and put it on my list but its on Save on netflix so it is going to be awhile.
I know there are more points I would like to respond to but I just don't have all the time to dedicate to one conversation/thread. I think I hit the important overall point. | |
|
| Pseudoscience - knowledge which masquerades as science
Posted: 3/27/2007 8:23:11 PM |
It is fine in schools, as an elective or in philosophy class or something. But its not fine to teach nonscience in science class.
Just a thought.
Religion and philosophy are often joined at the hip.
Philosophy, in some circles, is not considered a science.
Although one could argue that the foundation of philosophy is logic, which is also the foundation of mathmatics.
Mathmatics happens to be the tool used in the hard sciences.
Now I'm not advocating the science of religion, but religion certainly can bring up some philisophical debates, therefore if one could sift through the subleties of parables one might find a small thread of truth. Scientifically proven of course.
 | |
|
| |
| Self-Evidence
Posted: 3/27/2007 11:48:12 PM | Agreed, in fact we have Political Science when we only have a two, maybe 3 party system yet we have a good dozen fairly common religions so why don't we have Religion Science?
I certainly see less science in politics than I do in religion.
ok, rockondon, you want to go point to point with me here it is:
written right after I gave two perfect examples of pseudoscience and mentioned they wouldn't use the scientific method, which fits the definition you posted.
And I told you I had little to no knowledge of those two examples. I commented on Art's theories because I am familar with his thoughts though I have not read his book.
so you believe that books that sell well = science? You're awesome.
and a book that preaches of intolerance, lies, promotes slavery, wickedness, sexism, etc etc is a book of wisdom? Sorry, wrong
Don't put words in my mouth and in general this whole idea of you working hard to misconstrue what I say is in general, absurd. Your uselessly sarcastic tone is only serving to illustrate in magnificent color your own lack of understanding of the depth of the ways in which to understand the book. Do you really want to debate me by bullying me?
We are leading with knowledge and wisdom more and more each day - but we lose that wisdom if we think things like oh maybe god just put fossils here to make us scratch our heads.
Your opinion, again, once against stated in such a way as to misconstrue an item and try to hammer it into your way of thinking. This time it is a fossil. We all know the fossil exists shows the fact that a creature lived. I don't think our society is proving we are living with more wisdom every day. We are poisoning our own future generation with futile nutrition, we poison our air with toxic compounds, we needlessly risk the very viability of our food supply by using genetically modified sterile seed, we continue to think humancentrically rather than earthcentrically because the wisdom of the popular culture is to get all you can get as quick as you can get it and that only human produced goods have the most value. Or whatever it is. Wisdom is so devalued that we can not even consider teaching the bible or anything about its ways in school. All this humancentric thinking has only lead to greater unhappiness as evident through the nearly epidemic nationwide use of antidepressants. I hold these truths to be self evident about our culture. | |
|
| Self-Evidence
Posted: 3/28/2007 12:44:08 AM | ^ hey I'm not arguing that we aren't doing crappy things. We're fat. We take too many drugs. etc etc, I won't argue with you on those points.
What I don't agree with is what appears to be your proposed solutions:
I remember my gradeschool teacher teaching us "Creationism" and it was fine then. I fail to see why it would not be fine in todays schools...Why can't we lead with knowledge and wisdom instead of being reduced to nearly an over-evolutionalized monkey who, if he is lucky enough to remember, will react with knowledge and wisdom? | |
|
Mr H2O
|
Joined: 10/31/2006
Msg: 24 | |
| Pseudoscience - knowledge which masquerades as science
Posted: 3/28/2007 2:26:16 AM | Church and state are to kept seperate, at all times, everytime - no exceptions.
My tax money should not go towards any type of religious teachings.
If someone wants training on theology, let them pay for it out of pocket.
The thread idea is most certainly a mix of concepts from various webpages
I've read over the past few weeks on the internet.
I wanted to promote some discussion on the POF forums to see what this segment
of sociey thought and felt about being duped from the relentless media hype.
Every day people spend $$$ millions on things that just don't work because
the media machine browbeats them into thinking something is true.
Science is continually twisted and contorted to suit the promoters need.
Critical thinking seems to be a skill we don't teach enough of in the schools. | |
|
| Pseudoscience - knowledge which masquerades as science
Posted: 3/28/2007 4:26:52 PM |
Church and state are to kept seperate, at all times, everytime - no exceptions.
My tax money should not go towards any type of religious teachings.
If someone wants training on theology, let them pay for it out of pocket.
Every day people spend $$$ millions on things that just don't work because
the media machine browbeats them into thinking something is true.
Science is continually twisted and contorted to suit the promoters need.
Critical thinking seems to be a skill we don't teach enough of in the schools.
I totally agree. And teaching Intelligent Design as science (and that IS the way its backers classify it - wrongly, of course) would be a terrible idea. It gets us nowhere in learning how nature works. If people don't believe in evolution, you pull the foundation out from the pursuit for better medicines. Why do people think the flu vaccine has to be different every year? It's because viruses evolve. Make no mistake. ID is an attack on evolution. | |
|
Home
login 
