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

[Robin]

Please, allow me to clarify this, just in case I am misundestanding you:

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?

If I had meant that, don't you think I would have said that????

But since I didn't say or imply that or anything remotely like that then I am wondering why you are asking.

I suggest you concentrate on what what I actually say

There's a good chap.

 

[Robin]

Now tell us: how do you do it?

I provided two criterion in that very post with examples, I don't think I should

In other words, you tell them apart by mere "intuition", just not following any logical or rational way to do it.

Again your conclusion fails to follow from anything I said.

I said I don't assign percentages unless I have a function by which to calculate those percentages and you conclude that the only other possibility is that I must use mere intuition

That is what is called a false dichotomy.

 

[Sideroxylon]

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.

It’s a pejorative category of things we would exclude from the esteemed category of things we would call science. A practice/method fits into the all encompassing category of things.

 

[Robin]

Even in English you are making no sense to me.

Well I am not sure he understands the "knowing-that" vs "knowing-how" debate either.

I have had long discussions about it with professional philosophers and I am not sure I understand it either. Or they, for that matter.

Here is the SEP entry:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/episteme-techne/

and some of it:

In Plato’s dialogues the relation between knowledge (epistêmê) and craft or skill (technê) is complex and surprising. There is no general and systematic account of either but rather overlapping treatments, reflecting the context of different dialogues. Nevertheless, Plato emphasizes certain characteristics of both that demonstrate a sustained and consistent engagement with the two concepts.

 

[Robin]

@devhdb

I am still waiting for the demarcation rule that can distinguish Epistēmē from Techne with absolute certainty in every single case.

Do you have such a rule?

If you do not have such a rule, do you still consider it a useful distinction?

 

[Sideroxylon]

@devhdb

I am still waiting for the demarcation rule that can distinguish Epistēmē from Techne with absolute certainty in every single case.

Do you have such a rule?

If you do not have such a rule, do you still consider it a useful distinction?

Nice irony.

 

[Robin]

Deleted for now

 

[smartcooky]

To quote our not so revered, and recently departed, "oversized canine" poster.....


Hooboy!!!

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

To paraphrase a Mitchell and Webb sketch,

Sure, you will lose patients with actual diseases, but when someone comes in with a vague sense of unease, a touch of the nerves or even just more money then sense, you'll be there for them with a bottle of what is basically water and a huge invoice.

 

[8enotto]

My wife has 8 little bottles of water each withe a dosage by drops and frequency. They are supposed to be for anxiety and a sour stomach ( stress ) but it seems to be pure psychological help.

They haven't been touched in a month and her symptoms nearly went away when she started sleeping in a bit.

It's so effective you don't even have to use it to be cured.

 

[SusanB-M1]

I think I've just accidentally sent the following post as a pm. My apologies.

Why are you desparately looking for one?

What would be the problem if no such sharp demarcation existed?

I'm desperately looking for one for I have been looking for one for the past 13 years without any success. And also, for intellectual satisfaction.

The problem? Oh, it's not that it would be the end of the world, for, after 13 years of desperately looking for it, I'm used to the feeling of not having found it. :-D

But, maybe, and just maybe, it might come as a SHOCK for some kind people here to learn that, as of today, NOBODY has been able to tell science from pseudoscience properly.

Never.

Ever.

Funny, you know, but Your posts do keep evoking the thought in my mind, good old NPF although expressed from a different angle.

 

[I Am The Scum]

I'm still trying to find a scientific paper demonstrating the precise point where Loki's neck ends and his head begins.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

One could of course use these guidelines

Theory ; A model to explain observations that could be tested by the scientific method.

This would include things like string theory.

Science ; the use of models that have been tested and thus far not proven wrong.

This would include things like modern medicine, chemistry, physics including GR and QM

Pseudoscience ; the use of models that have been tested and clearly proven wrong

This is where things like Homeopathy, the 5G conspiracy, Flat earth etc end up.

 

[arthwollipot]

We're certainly not going to resolve the Demarcation Problem here.

The demarcation problem in the philosophy of science and epistemology is about how to distinguish between science and non-science,[1] including between science, pseudoscience, and other products of human activity, like art and literature, and beliefs.[2][3] The debate continues after over two millennia of dialogue among philosophers of science and scientists in various fields, and despite a broad agreement on the basics of the scientific method.[4][5]

However, the fact that this problem exists does not mean that we can cast doubt on the things that have been demonstrated by science to be true (allowing Stephen Jay Gould's caveat that true can only mean demonstrated to such an extent that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent).

Take Newton's laws of motion. An object in motion will stay in motion in a uniform speed and direction unless acted upon by an outside force. This can be demonstrated, quantified, and on the macro scale, shown to be true. You can dispute this, in which case you will be invited to perform the experiment yourself, and if you do it correctly, you get the same results.

Astrology is often cited as being scientific, since the process of drawing up a natal horoscope involves carefully calculating the apparent positions of the planets in relation to the Earth, and as far as this process goes, it is as scientific as anything. But the astrologers do not stop there. They claim that the positions of the planets have meaning in human lives, and this is where they go off the rails. You can give a single horoscope to two different astrologers and they will produce different predictions. This does not happen with a scientific experiment. If you and I have an identical experimental protocol, then we will get identical results. If we don't, then we have to reconsider our hypothesis.

That's one way in which science differs from pseudoscience, but as should be obvious from the fact that this thread is four pages long after only two days, the question does not lend itself to simple pithy answers.

It is a common tactic of believers in pseudoscience to challenge people to come up with a simple, pithy answer to an extremely complex and difficult problem, and then claim victory when such a simple answer is not immediately supplied. The creationists have known this for decades.

The OP has issued us with five such challenges, knowing full well that no-one in over two millennia has had the answers they seek. They somehow think that they are going to score points by doing this, but it is disingenuous. Not only are we as aware as they are that the Demarcation Problem exists, but we also don't think it's that big a deal. In the most part, it is clear what is scientific and what is not. If two groups using the same experimental protocol get the same results, then it's probably scientific. If they don't, then it probably isn't.

And let's get away from asking for CERTAINTY. Science doesn't deal in certainty. Science deals with describing objective reality in increasing accuracy and detail. Anyone demanding CERTAINTY from science has fundamentally misunderstood the method and purpose of science.

 

[Darat]

Well I am not sure he understands the "knowing-that" vs "knowing-how" debate either.

I have had long discussions about it with professional philosophers and I am not sure I understand it either. Or they, for that matter.

Here is the SEP entry:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/episteme-techne/

and some of it:

That’s just raised one of the only interesting so far for me in this thread. I know the concepts he introduced, I know the terms yet for some reason seeing it like that caused a mental stop.

I can read some modern Greek, and when I read his post the automatic translation I made in my head didn’t trigger my memory of the philosophical uses of the words. I wonder if it is because I learned about the philosophical points before I learned to read some modern Greek?

 

[Robin]

As Carl Sagan said, absolute certainty we leave to priests and politicians.

 

[Robin]

If we were to stop talking about absolute certainty, which I am fairly sure none of us will profess to possessing, and talk instead of 'beyond reasonable doubt' then perhaps we could make headway.

There are certainly criteria which would put it beyond reasonable doubt in most cases whether a process was scientific or pseudo scientific.

Of course there will always be borderline cases.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

My wife has 8 little bottles of water each withe a dosage by drops and frequency. They are supposed to be for anxiety and a sour stomach ( stress ) but it seems to be pure psychological help.

They haven't been touched in a month and her symptoms nearly went away when she started sleeping in a bit.

It's so effective you don't even have to use it to be cured.

Ah, but if she keeps the magic water bottles near any other water that she does consume (or sucrose or lactose) then it will have 'grafted' those other substances into 'medicine'. See it does work!

Sarcasm, of course, but I really suggest looking up the homeopathic 'technique' of grafting. It really is the point where they stopped even pretending to be doing anything other than selling sugar pills and I find it's a great 'tipping point' for someone on the fence about the subject.

 

[8enotto]

They are near the fridge! Its a miracle!

 

[Wudang]

The first book on logic I read as a teenager several decades ago used the term "logically black is white slide". The example the author gave of such an argument was: there are at least 3 definitions of sunset. Astronomical, maritime and civil. I forget now which is which but one says when the sun touches the horizon, one when the sun's centre reaches the horizon and one when the sun finally disappears below the horizon. Since we can't define a precise point of sunset then we can't tell night from day.
And yet somehow we manage.