I challenge you:cite ONE paper that discerns Science from Pseudoscience wth CERTAINTY

[devhdb]

though I am aware that critics have said it fails to make testable predictions.

Exactly.

So, is that a science or a pseudoscience?

 

[Mojo]

I'm glad that you bring this topic. Please, let me explain myself better:

Are you aware of the replication crisis in Medicine?

Out of 49 medical studies from 1990–2003 with more than 1000 citations, 45 claimed that the studied therapy was effective. Out of these studies, 16% were contradicted by subsequent studies, 16% had found stronger effects than did subsequent studies, 44% were replicated, and 24% remained largely unchallenged.[58] The US Food and Drug Administration in 1977–1990 found flaws in 10–20% of medical studies.[59] In a paper published in 2012, Glenn Begley, a biotech consultant working at Amgen, and Lee Ellis, at the University of Texas, argued that only 11% of the pre-clinical cancer studies could be replicated.

A 2016 article by John Ioannidis, Professor of Medicine and of Health Research and Policy at Stanford University School of Medicine and a Professor of Statistics at Stanford University School of Humanities and Sciences, elaborated on "Why Most Clinical Research Is Not Useful".[62] In the article Ioannidis laid out some of the problems and called for reform, characterizing certain points for medical research to be useful again; one example he made was the need for medicine to be "patient centered" (e.g. in the form of the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute) instead of the current practice to mainly take care of "the needs of physicians, investigators, or sponsors". Ioannidis is known for his research focus on science itself since the 2005 paper "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False".


Would you say that it's fair to conclude that medicine is a failed science just because some studies cannot be replicated? Or maybe they are just doing science, and, as such, are subjected to trial and error, in the very same way that the homeopath is?

To paraphrase the late Dr Jonathan Miller, “take out the mote from your own eye before you come messing around with our beams.”

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Exactly.

So, is that a science or a pseudoscience?

No. It seems to be a conjecture. It may eventually develop into a science, or it may be a dead end. It's not pretending to be a science by just looking sciency, so I wouldn't class it as a pseudoscience.

 

[Crossbow]

As for me, I really do not care if there is some sort of definitive paper out there or not which can irrefutably state the difference between actual science and pseudo-science.

After all actual science is real, and as such, real science can be objectively tested, and real science can be used to predict future events.

Whereas pseudo-science means whatever one wants it mean and as such, pseudo-science can not be objectively tested and pseudo-science cannot be reliably used to predict future events.

If someone can show me how to use pseudo-science to solve a mathematical problem, build an airplane, or make a better mouse trap, then I would have some respect for pseudo-science.

 

[Mojo]

I beg to differ.

A homeopath that is investigating the possible effects of his experiments and who tries to test his hypothesis is by all means a candidate for being called a scientist properly.

What about homeopaths who repeatedly cite the same small, flawed trials? Who make excuses for the failure of homeopathy to show efficacy in properly conducted controlled trials? Who claim that homeopathy can’t be properly tested by controlled trials?

 

[Mojo]

Though maybe homeopathy is still a protoscience.

It’s been failing in RCTs for at least 185 years.

 

[ynot]

I consider myself a true skeptic in the sense that I know that I know nothing... and even I couldn't be sure of that, may I add.

You are conflating skepticism and ignorance (first mistake of many).

If you know nothing then you can’t know you know nothing. Your very first sentence is a contradiction.

My philosophical and intellectual position is that there is NO WAY to tell science from pseudoscience with certainty. But I'm happily open to you changing my mind, of course.

Rubbish! You would change your mind very quickly if you were choosing between flying in a plane you knew was designed, manufactured and flown using pseudoscientific methods, and a plane you knew was designed, manufactured and flown using scientific methods. You know you’re using a computer device designed and manufactured by scientific methods, and you know there is no such device designed and manufactured by pseudoscientific methods because it wouldn’t work. Science works, pseudoscience doesn’t.

No point continuing further . . .

 

[P.J. Denyer]

What do you call a homeopath who honestly and transparently applies the rigours of the scientific method to his belief?

Answer:"The Scourge of Complimentary Medicine"

Edzard Ernst

 

[Mojo]

I beg to differ.

A homeopath that is investigating the possible effects of his experiments and who tries to test his hypothesis is by all means a candidate for being called a scientist properly.

And, by the way, it has been noted that homeopaths tend to try to validate rather than test their hypothesis. To quote Linde and Melchart (1998). Randomized controlled trials of individualized homeopathy: a state-of-the-art review. J Altern Complement Med, Winter 1998;4(4):371-88:

The motivation for doing trials seems less to be innovation or self-critical evaluation of performance (which is generally agreed to be the motivation for good research) but rather justification in front of a hostile scientific establishment.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

And, by the way, it has been noted that homeopaths tend to try to validate rather than test their hypothesis. To quote Linde and Melchart (1998). Randomized controlled trials of individualized homeopathy: a state-of-the-art review. J Altern Complement Med, Winter 1998;4(4):371-88:

With one notable exception at least..

 

[Thermal]

Hi devhdb, chiming in with others that you are trying to find a very precise line where none exists. Science, oversimplified, is a rigorous way of thinking. Pseudoscience, not so rigorous. One cod probably be the other in the right thought experiment. So roll with the rigor and watch for the lack thereof.

 

[Hellbound]

Fair enough.

Though maybe homeopathy is still a protoscience.

What kind of predictions makes the String Theory? And the hypothesis of the Multiverse? Can they be falsified?

Theoretically, yes, practically, no. The major research being done in both areas right now is to find predictions that can be tested practically. They are scientific hypothesis as of now, neither is accepted as true.

Also, just as an aside, there is no such thing as "string theory". There are numerous variant string theories, such as 11d Supergravity or EO8xEO8 supersymmetry. All are currently hypotheses. IF someone is pushing them as already confirmed, then that would be pseudoscientific.

A similar applies to multiverse theories...there are more than one, and none have yet been proven.

Or maybe are they just protosciences yet?

With a small difference: homeopathy CAN be falsified. How about String Theory and the Multiverse? Can they be considered scientific?

Homeopathy HAS been falsified. That's the difference. String theories haven't been tested, for the most part (some were excluded by tests at the LHC, but not all), so the jury is still out on those. Homeopathy has been repeatedly tested, in numerous trials, and has consistently failed to produce any positive result.

The predictions made by the various string theories haven't been disproven; they make predictions consistent with what we see. The problem there is not that they can't be tested, but that we can't define tests to choose among the various ones that are out there. All are consistent with what we know so far. Compare that to homeopathy, which has been tested, and is not consistent with either experimental results or other theories that we have tested to be true.

That's the difference. An untested hypothesis is still worth investigation, specifically to find ways to test it. A hypothesis that is clung to, long past the point of extensive, and conclusive testing, is pseudoscientific.

Hmm... maybe we have a problem with your argumentation there...

No, not really.

 

[acbytesla]

Hi all,

I consider myself a true skeptic in the sense that I know that I know nothing... and even I couldn't be sure of that, may I add.

My philosophical and intellectual position is that there is NO WAY to tell science from pseudoscience with certainty. But I'm happily open to you changing my mind, of course.

This is a collective didactic experiment within the community meant to learn from everyone and not to attack anyone but belief systems. Hence, please don't feel offended if your scientific paradigms are questioned for it's nothing personal.

Please, debate nicely, politely and with well manners and I'll do the same. Thanks.



Without further ado, I would like to posit you 5 questions:


1. What are the necessary and sufficient conditions so that a certain assertion, precisely defined and without any kind of ambiguity can be considered scientific vs. a pseudoscientific one? Why don't you cite ONE paper on Philosophy of Science that allows us to follow a logical, rational and consistent method to determine with certainty between science and pseudoscience, that's to say a Demarcation Criterion? -> please cite from Google Scholar.

2. In case that you affirm to be able to discern between science and pseudoscience with certainty, then: what logical, rational and consistent method do you follow to affirm whether String Theory or the Multiverse hypothesis are science or pseudoscience? Are they falseable? And, if they are falseable, how exactly? What type of observable 'datum', directly or indirectly mensurable would refute each of them?

3. What logical, rational and consistent algorithm do you follow to be able to distinguish if Matter and Consciousness are one and the same thing?

4. Can you describe the redness of red as if you were describing it to a man born with blind, from the subjective experience of a self-conscious 'I', 'emerged'? from a viscous matter called brain?

5. What degree of certainty (in percentage) would you demand from a judge to justify his sentence to you for condemning you to indemnify with $100.000 and 5 years of prison for you having slandered the honor of a certain homeopath calling her 'pseudoscientific' without justifying which Demarcation Criterion did you use to discern between Science and Pseudoscience with certainty? 70%?, 95% of certainty? What value (precisely) would leave you satisfied so that your prison sentence would be rationally justified?


My answers:


1. I DON'T KNOW.
2. I DON'T KNOW.
3. I DON'T KNOW.
4. NO.
5. I DON'T KNOW.



FAQ:

Science is what follows THE Scientific Method.

Fine.

In that case:

How do you precisely define THE Scientific Method?
Is it valid for natural sciences and for social sciences as well?

Is Falsifiability a necessary and sufficient condition for a certain assertion to be considered scientific? If not, why?

Most importantly: could you please rebut each one of Karl Popper's 3 arguments against the existence of the Scientific Method?

i.e.:

The Preface to Popper's Realism and the Aim of Science (1983)
A talk to a meeting of the Fellows of the Centre for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences at Stanford in November 1956.


“As a rule, I begin my lectures on Scientific Method by telling my students that
Scientific Method does not exist. I add that I ought to know, having been for a time, the one and only professor of this non-existent subject within the British Commonwealth.”
—Realism and the Aim of Science, Karl Popper, p. 5

I assert that no scientific method exists in any of these three senses. To put it in a more direct way:

(1) There is no method of discovering a scientific theory.
(2) There is no method of ascertaining the truth of a scientific hypothesis, i. e., no method of verification.
(3) There is no method of ascertaining whether a hypothesis is “probable”, or probably true.

—Realism and the Aim of Science, Karl Popper, p. 6

I believe that the so-called method of science consists in this kind of criticism [severe]. Scientific theories are distinguished from myths merely in being criticizable, and in being open to modifications in the light of criticism. They can be neither verified nor probabilified.
—Realism and the Aim of Science, Karl Popper, p. 7

This alleged but non-existent method [of science] is that of collecting observations and then “drawing conclusions” from them. It is slavishly aped by some historians who believe that they can collect documentary evidence which corresponding to the observations of natural science, forms the “empirical basis” for their conclusions.

This alleged method is one that can never be put into effect: you can neither collect observations nor documentary evidence if you do not first have a problem.
—Objective Knowledge, Karl Popper, p. 186

“What do I teach my students? And how can I teach them?”

Source:
"Realism and the Aim of Science: From the Postscript to The Logic of Scientific Discovery", by Karl Popper, Routledge, 1983.
ISBN-10: 0-415-08400-8. 464 pp. Pages 5 and 6:

Extract @ Google Books: /books?id=tlowU8nS2ygC


Also:

"The theory of natural selection may be so formulated that it is far from tautological. In this case it is not only testable, but it turns out to be NOT STRICTLY UNIVERSALLY TRUE. There seem to be exceptions, as with so many biological theories; and considering the random character o f the variations on which natural selection operates, the occurrence of exceptions is not surprising. Thus not all phenomena of evolution are explained by natural selection alone. Yet in every particular case it is a challenging research program to show how far natural selection can possibly be held responsible for the evolution of a particular organ or behavioral program."

Sources:
[1] Popper, Karl (1976). Unended Quest. La Salle: Open Court. ISBN 0875483437.
[2] Autobiography, Karl Popper. "I consider darwinism as metaphysics and as a research program. It is metaphysics because it is NOT TESTABLE."
Google Books: /books?id=NyCEnehPMd8C&lpg=PP1&dq=unended ques
[3] Miller, David (1985). Popper selections. pp. 239-246. ISBN 978-0691020310.
[4] Evolutionary epistemology, rationality, and the sociology of knowledge, by Karl Popper. pp. 143-147.
Google Books: /books?id=QnFiTrCzg5oC&lpg=PA143&ots=c7x_hTlgH


Happy debate!

It's like porn. I know it when I see it.

I definitely think the multiverse theory is pseudoscience at this time. And maybe String theory.

Science requires naturalistic answers that can be demonstrated consistently. But many a theory goes through a phase where the ideas have not been proven and cannot be falsified either. It seems to me you're asking what it is before it is proven. IMV As long as one is working toward proving the hypotheses, what does it matter how you label it?

As long as you are being honest and applying critical reason you are practicing the scientific method whether the results are satisfactory or not.

 

[Sideroxylon]

I beg to differ.

A homeopath that is investigating the possible effects of his experiments and who tries to test his hypothesis is by all means a candidate for being called a scientist properly.

Can you provide an example of a homeopath doing such a thing? Dishonesty becomes obvious when facing hard expert scrutiny.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Even in English you are making no sense to me.

It is clear to me. Khunian incommensurability at work?

 

[Darat]

I beg to differ.

A homeopath that is investigating the possible effects of his experiments and who tries to test his hypothesis is by all means a candidate for being called a scientist properly.

Beg whatever you like.

Since you know have implied you know what a scientists is can you provide your definition?

 

[Darat]

You say:

I’ll just reply on my non existent iPad.

I say:

Do you mean that science is that AND ONLY THAT *KNOWLEDGE* which produces *TECHNOLOGY*, such as an iPad? Please correct me if I'm wrong... is that your final posture?

Fine.

In that case, please, let me know:

- are Mathematics science?
- what kind of technology has produced String Theory?
- what kind of technology has produced the hypothesis of the Multiverse?

Are String Theory and/or the hypothesis of the Multiverse science of pseudoscience?

[as I already replied to Robin before: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=13055667#post13055667 ]

Also, I would appreciate if at least ONE person here tries to answer at least ONE question out of the 5 asked on my first post.

In order to advance into this interesting debate, would you try to answer at least one of those, Darat?

Thanks.

You are wrong.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Thanks for reminding me that Philosophy (and the "work" of Karl Popper) is utterly worthless.

Not at all. To draw a parallel with science, a rigorously tested provocative theory that doesn’t work out (lol failing at avoiding to say falsified) is something of value when it is engaged with as Popper’s ideas have been.

 

[Darat]

Reminds me of the guy last week insinuating that science just hadn't got around to properly looking at astrology yet.

Homeopathy has had 200 years of playing at being science. It's not as if it's untestable. It doesn't work other than as a placebo and there's no plausible reason to imagine it should.

The thing is that homeopathy has been investigated with the tools of science which is why we know it doesn’t work. It long ago stopped being anything worth investigating since we learnt it doesn’t do what it says on the tin.

Homeopathy isn’t a pseudoscience, it’s a type of claimed medical treatment that we know doesn’t work.

 

[Darat]

Exactly.

So, is that a science or a pseudoscience?

Science is a methodology not a thing, if one uses the scientific method to investigate anything one is doing science.

Pseudoscience is not a methodology.