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

devhdb said:
Hi Craig, welcome.

By "you", you mean "me" or you mean "all"? Why? Could you please explain yourself a bit better?

Thanks!
Click to expand...

Certainly. You clearly don't understand the point of peer reviewed papers. It's the process that weeds out the pseudoscience not the publishing. Publish a paper on say, telepathy that claims it works. No one else duplicates your results or others identify flaws in reasoning, research design, methodology. Paper gets lots of holes poked in it. Scientific consensus remains that telepathy is bull ****. All is as it should be.
 
devhdb said:
If by "true" you mean "in accordance with fact or reality" then, as a true skeptic that I consider myself, the only truth I can be certain of is that I'm having the feeling [fact] that I don't know... and I could even be wrong about that.

And you?
Click to expand...
So are you claiming, for example, that you don't know what you mean by anything you say?

Or do you know what you mean by the things you are saying?
 
devhdb said:
Sure.

Please, correct me if I'm wrong:

1. Are you saying that science is and only is all that knowledge which produces technology?

a) yes.
b) no.

why?

3. Do you consider mathematics, science?

a) yes.
b) no.

why?

2. Do you consider social sciences, science?

a) yes.
b) no.

why?

3. Do you consider history, science?

a) yes.
b) no.

why?

4. Do you consider biology, science?

a) yes.
b) no.

why?

5. Do you consider geology, science?

a) yes.
b) no.

why?


Source: Karl Popper, Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge (Routledge Classics [2nd ed., 2002]); Note #12, page 103.
ISBN: 0415285941, 9780415285940

Thanks.
Click to expand...

I consider the application of the scientific method to be science.
 
devhdb said:
As a reminder, and so that we can properly address this, in this thread, this argumentation goes like this:
Click to expand...

I know how the argumentation goes; you ask a set of questions that are framed to disallow informative answers and claim that the very phrasing of the questions makes it self-evident that you are right in your assertion that pseudoscience cannot ever be distinguished from science. When any flaws in your reasoning are pointed out, you reply with another similarly framed question. As in the complex question fallacy, you aim to exclude all answers that do not agree with your conclusion because they do not conform to the assumptions implicit in the phrasing of the question. Your repeated usage of this blatantly dishonest technique is the primary reason why nobody believes you when you claim to have started this thread to learn from others, as well as the primary reason why nobody considers your questions worth addressing.

Put more simply, a rhetorical question is not an answer.

Dave
 
devhdb said:
... you are all VERY PRECISE when you decide to judge a certain investigator as pseudoscientist beyond all reasonable doubt: either he IS or he ISN'T. There's no middle way.



Otherwise you would refer to a certain pseudoscientist as 50%, 90% pseudoscientist, right? But no, yours is a BLACK OR WHITE distinction.



Hence, please, be PRECISE as to how you determine that such an investigator deserves to be called pseudoscientist.



Or face the possibility of being sued for slander.
Click to expand...

Since you appear to be threatening to sue everyone here, or perhaps warning that some other unnamed person will sue us all, can you perhaps indicate where we all declared that unnamed person was a pseudoscientist?

I literally have no idea who you're referring to, but this person's hurt feelings seem to be of vital concern to you. If I knew who it was, maybe I could recall whether or not I had accused them of being a pseudoscientist.

Thanks
 
Craig4 said:
Certainly. You clearly don't understand the point of peer reviewed papers. It's the process that weeds out the pseudoscience not the publishing. Publish a paper on say, telepathy that claims it works. No one else duplicates your results or others identify flaws in reasoning, research design, methodology. Paper gets lots of holes poked in it. Scientific consensus remains that telepathy is bull ****. All is as it should be.
Click to expand...

Ok, so, please correct me if I'm wrong, you maintain that science is what the scientific "consensus" says, without any particular logic or rational behind it, just because it is "fashionable" or "trendy", right?

In that case, we might agree: I invite you to check out Kuhn's work, "The structure of scientific revolutions". He affirms just whay you said. And I mostly agree with him on that.
 
Robin said:
So are you claiming, for example, that you don't know what you mean by anything you say?

Or do you know what you mean by the things you are saying?
Click to expand...

Oh, of course I do: I have my own "definitions" for "words" and, apparently, there might be other "people" outside my brain that might share the same "definitions" and rules of logic that I try to apply to my argumentations.

It is in sharing all these "definitions" and "logic" with other "people" that we can construct and share a particular view of the world.

But all that is arbitrary: I could be meaning an "apple" when I say "table". I kind of "fake" that I understand you when you pronounce the word "know", so that we can continue the debate. :-)

You left the other questions unanswered, in which case, I'm afraid we won't be able to continue our interesting argumentation, though.

Will you please answer those?

Thanks.

;-)
 
Dave Rogers said:
I know how the argumentation goes; you ask a set of questions that are framed to disallow informative answers and claim that the very phrasing of the questions makes it self-evident that you are right in your assertion that pseudoscience cannot ever be distinguished from science.
Click to expand...

No, I'm not "framing" anything here.

It's much simpler than that:

- Do you claim to know how to tell science from pseudoscience?
- If so, how?

My answer: no, I don't know.

Yours?
 
Jack by the hedge said:
I literally have no idea who you're referring to, but this person's hurt feelings seem to be of vital concern to you. If I knew who it was, maybe I could recall whether or not I had accused them of being a pseudoscientist.

Thanks
Click to expand...

I'm not referring to anyone. It's just for sake of argument.
 
devhdb said:
I'm not referring to anyone. It's just for sake of argument.
Click to expand...
Ah. Well if I have only hypothetically done the thing you said we had all done I shall stop fretting over whether I might not have been justified in doing it and just assume I was hypothetically right.

Thanks
 
devhdb said:
Hi Dave, thanks for your contribution.

As a reminder, and so that we can properly address this, in this thread, this argumentation goes like this:

1. Cite one paper that discerns Science from Pseudscience with CERTAINTY.
2. Darat answers: "I’ll just reply on my non existent iPad. "
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=13055524#post13055524
3. I reply with Episteme != Techne
4. Robin replies with "You forgot to provide your demarcation criterion to distinguish between the two."
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=13055602#post13055602
5. I reply with:

Are you saying that science is and only is all that knowledge which produces technology?

a) yes.
b) no.

why?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=13057881#post13057881

So, the logic chain goes like this:

*INITIALLY*, Darat (or anyone of you) not only refuses to answer my petition to "Cite one paper that discerns Science from Pseudscience with CERTAINTY." but Darat's DEMARCATION CRITERION reply implies —please Darat, correct me if I'm wrong— that Science is all that produces Technology.

Hence me questioning Darat's initial reply: do you think science is that and only that which produces technology? If that's the case, please explain why.

If that's not the case, your (and, implicitly, Robin's too) iPad reply is refuted.

P.S.: I define the "demarcation criterion" (in your words, it doesn't exist such a concept in the History of Philosophy, and, in any case, but, for sake of argument...) between episteme and techne like this:

episteme aka theory: a system of ideas intended to explain something
techne aka practice: the actual application or use of an idea

and you?

Simple, right? :)
Click to expand...

As I said the first time I answered you, you are wrong.
 
devhdb said:
You left the other questions unanswered, in which case, I'm afraid we won't be able to continue our interesting argumentation, though
Click to expand...
You mean those questions you asked in order to avoid answering my question?
 
devhdb said:
Ok, so, please correct me if I'm wrong, you maintain that science is what the scientific "consensus" says, without any particular logic or rational behind it, just because it is "fashionable" or "trendy", right?

In that case, we might agree: I invite you to check out Kuhn's work, "The structure of scientific revolutions". He affirms just whay you said. And I mostly agree with him on that.
Click to expand...
You are totally wrong. How do you even get that from what he wrote?
You know full well what the scientific method is and how ideas are accepted or rejected.
 
devhdb said:
P.S.: I define the "demarcation criterion" (in your words, it doesn't exist such a concept in the History of Philosophy, and, in any case, but, for sake of argument...) between episteme and techne like this:

episteme aka theory: a system of ideas intended to explain something
Click to expand...
Again, let's take these one by one.

As I understand it your definition of episteme does not include the process that was required to learn or develop the system of ideas, yes?

That would make this concept irrelevant for your reply to Darat.
 
devhdb said:
Ok, so, please correct me if I'm wrong, you maintain that science is what the scientific "consensus" says, without any particular logic or rational behind it, just because it is "fashionable" or "trendy", right?

In that case, we might agree: I invite you to check out Kuhn's work, "The structure of scientific revolutions". He affirms just whay you said. And I mostly agree with him on that.
Click to expand...

You know full well that is not what I said. Science is the process.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom