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

devhdb said:
Not a single person has answered at least ONE of the 5 questions yet.

No one.

None.


My answers:

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

Yours?

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I am suspicious of the cartesian subject-object distinction so do not expect to be able to carve nature social constructs at their non existent joints. I have no surprise or issue with the fact that criteria for placing anything in any category will collapse under intense scrutiny. But this is the way we operate as human beings dealing with the world and it works until it doesn’t. Fallibilism FTW, baby.
 
Last edited:
Robin said:
Actually these have been answered a number of times but apparently you did not like (or didn't understand) the answers. OK, lets be explicit:

1. False premise, it is processes or methodologies that can be classified as scientific, not assertions.
2. Follow up to a question to a question with a false premise
3. No apparent relevance to the subject
4. No apparent relevance to the subject
5. Category mistake, neither I nor the judge could plausibly have a function or a rule to assign a numeric quantity to this, I would be looking for a valid and sound argument from the judge.
Click to expand...

Incidentally, if you can show relevance to 3 and 4 then I can address them, but I don't understand why you don't start a separate thread for them.
 
Robin said:
@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?
Click to expand...
Bump
 
acbytesla said:
Neither does obtuse pedantry make your comments intelligent either. I guess that makes us even.
Click to expand...


Unfortunately your (irrational) hubris cannot make the problem regarding the clear cut, once and forever, separation between science and pseudo-science disappear. Burying the head in the sand does not help.
Edited by zooterkin: 
<SNIP>
Edited for rule 0 and rule 12.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
metacristi said:
Unfortunately your (irrational) hubris cannot make the problem regarding the clear cut separation between science and pseudo-science disappear. I suggest you to play elsewhere, being rational does not seem to be your strong point here.
Click to expand...

I'll play where I want to play. And clearly I'm needed here.

This reminds me of the con men of Enron who created phony derivatives that people like Warren Buffett didn't understand. The people at Enron talked a good game conning some very smart people. They appealed to people's fears of looking stupid by suggesting their inability to understand was the problem and not what they were selling.

I'm not buying and I think you're selling swill just like they were.

I know what science is and the only thing I know about "pseudoscience' is that it's not science. Do you know how I know that? It's in the word. It literally means fake science. So basically anything that is not science could qualify as 'pseudoscience'.

From my perspective, the posing of this question demonstrates a hidden agenda. Soon, I'm sure the 'woo' will appear.
 
devhdb said:
Not a single person has answered at least ONE of the 5 questions yet.

No one.

None.
Click to expand...
I explained in great detail why no-one has bothered with your questions. The tl;dr is that they are stupid, spurious questions that no-one other than yourself is interested in, which you are using to unilaterally declare victory in a game no-one but you is playing.
 
acbytesla said:
I'll play where I want to play. And clearly I'm needed here.

This reminds me of the con men of Enron who created phony derivatives that people like Warren Buffett didn't understand. The people at Enron talked a good game conning some very smart people. They appealed to people's fears of looking stupid by suggesting their inability to understand was the problem and not what they were selling.

I'm not buying and I think you're selling swill just like they were.

I know what science is and the only thing I know about "pseudoscience' is that it's not science. Do you know how I know that? It's in the word. It literally means fake science. So basically anything that is not science could qualify as 'pseudoscience'.

From my perspective, the posing of this question demonstrates a hidden agenda. Soon, I'm sure the 'woo' will appear.
Click to expand...

Circle the wagons and don’t give an inch of ground. The scientific worldview is under a sneaky attack!

“It’s in the word” Holy tautology, Batman!
 
Robin said:
Can you point out even one of these?
Click to expand...


What about, at least, that we don't have yet a criterion which to make a clear cut, once and forever, separation between science and pseudo science? As a marginal note it is clear to me that people here have only marginal knowledge regarding the subject, understandable; what amazes me is when they try to 'debunk' even what they do not understand, although the problem is well acknowledged in its field (probably because it is inconceivable in their worldview, sloppy dismissal of the entire filed and so on)...for me this behaviour is one of the marks of pseudo-skepticism (unfortunately even what looks like'woo woo' now can still be, potentially, part of a science of tomorrow).
 
Last edited:
metacristi said:
What about, at least, that we don't have yet a criterion which to make a clear cut separation between science and pseudo science? As a marginal note it is clear to me that people here have only marginal knowledge regarding the subject, understandable, what amazes me is when they try to 'debunk' even what they do not understand (probably because it is inconceivable in their worldview)...one of the marks of pseudo-skepticism.
Click to expand...

Yes
 
Again, the whole thing hinges upon whether or not it is meaningful to describe a process as scientific.

If it is then there must be processes that are not scientific.
 
metacristi said:
What about, at least, that we don't have yet a criterion which to make a clear cut separation between science and pseudo science?
Click to expand...
Isn't that just a banal statement of obvious fact?

Or can banal statements of obvious facts be good philosophical points?

As I pointed out earlier, we use lots of terms for which there is no clear cut seperations, but are nevertheless useful distinctions, the example I gave earlier is Epistēmē from Techne.
 
Last edited:
acbytesla said:
I know what science is and the only thing I know about "pseudoscience' is that it's not science. Do you know how I know that? It's in the word. It literally means fake science. So basically anything that is not science could qualify as 'pseudoscience'.
Click to expand...
I think that there are things that qualify as "nonscience" rather than "pseudoscience". Improvisational jazz, for example. But if something tries to look like science but does not follow the methods properly, that's pseudoscience.

For example. There are studies of homoeopathy that superficially appear to be scientific. There are papers published in journals that have abstract, method, results and conclusion. But the journals they are published in are not peer-reviewed. The trials are not blinded. They are conducted on a small data set. The results are massaged until they fit the conclusion. Using poor science to support a predetermined conclusion is pseudoscientific.
 
Sideroxylon said:
Circle the wagons and don’t give an inch of ground. The scientific worldview is under a sneaky attack!

“It’s in the word” Holy tautology, Batman!
Click to expand...

:D. ROFL.

Any one referencing Batman deserves kudos.

Science is a process. So I guess anything that isn't true to the logical process might qualify as pseudoscience. Personally, I have issues with some things that label themselves as science when they simply are not reliable or deterministic enough. But Chemistry is science. Most Physics in my mind is science. So is Math. Falsifiability is probably the most essential trait that separates science from anything else.
 
There is no sharp demarcation between mammal and not mammal.

But this does not imply that we cannot be sure that a lobster is not a mammal.
 
arthwollipot said:
I think that there are things that qualify as "nonscience" rather than "pseudoscience". Improvisational jazz, for example. But if something tries to look like science but does not follow the methods properly, that's pseudoscience.

For example. There are studies of homoeopathy that superficially appear to be scientific. There are papers published in journals that have abstract, method, results and conclusion. But the journals they are published in are not peer-reviewed. The trials are not blinded. They are conducted on a small data set. The results are massaged until they fit the conclusion. Using poor science to support a predetermined conclusion is pseudoscientific.
Click to expand...

Improvisational jazz is only pseudoscience if it is pretending to be science
 
Robin said:
There is no sharp demarcation between mammal and not mammal.

But this does not imply that we cannot be sure that a lobster is not a mammal.
Click to expand...

Or any(?) given species for that matter. Still it doesn’t stop us behaving like platonic idealists at least some of the time.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom