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

[CORed]

Hi Hellbound, welcome.

What kind of experiments String Theory, a theoretical framework in which the point-like particles of particle physics are replaced by one-dimensional objects called strings, conduct?

What kind of experiments the hypotheses of the Multiverse, that is, a hypothetical group of multiple universes that together, these universes comprise everything that exists: the entirety of space, time, matter, energy, information, and the physical laws and constants that describe them, where the different universes within the multiverse are called "parallel universes", "other universes", or "alternate universes", conduct?

Are they falsable? If so, how, what particular observable 'datum' would do it?

Thanks.


As a reminder to all, in order to stay on topic, I beg you to at least try and cite ONE paper, which is THE initial objective —though yet unfulfilled as of now— of this interesting collective didactic experiment within the so-called "international SKEPTIC" community.



I shall paste it for reference again:

• 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.

Otherwise, unless someone achieves to mention this Demarcation Criterion, we'll have to assume that such paper doesn't exist and that determining what is "pseudoscience" is something COMPLETELY ARBITRARY and unfounded on logic and reason.

Hence, we could properly call those who affirm to know such Demarcation Criterion but do not communicate it to be practising

[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/F6QwZyd.png[/qimg]​

Happy inquiry to all!

[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/xHmpElG.jpg[/qimg]

I'm not at all familiar with the details of string theory, but I'm pretty sure it makes some predictions which can be tested. Multiverse theory, I'm not sure there is any way to test it, so it kind of resides on the borderland between science and philosophy. It's an interesting idea, but maybe not provable or falsifiable.

As for homeopathy, it doesn't even make it to the level of pseudoscience. It doesn't really even pretend to be based on any kind of evidence, and one of its central claims, that the higher the dilution, the stronger the "medicine" is easily observable to be the exact opposite of reality.

ETA:

Scientism: A word made up by people who are butt-hurt that their most cherished beliefs are not supported (or are clearly refuted) by actual evidence. It's very popular among flat-earthers, and I guess it's starting to catch on with believers in homeopathy. Not that there's a lot of difference between the two.

Note: The fact that people have declined to answer your foolish question, and posit that, between science and pseudoscience, there is a gray area, which you might call bad science, or maybe just experimental error, in no way refutes science.

 

[abaddon]

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

a) yes.
b) no.

why?

No. Plenty of science is done which has not much practical application. It is still science. It may be that someone in the future may find a use for such knowledge, or not. That matters not a whit. For example, taxonomy is a science. It's practical uses are limited, but valuable. And certainly does not produce technology. Nevertheless, at some future point, maybe somebody will invent a taxonomic identification device

2. Do you consider social sciences, science?

a) yes.
b) no.

why?

Both. Some of it is and some of it is not.

3. Do you consider mathematics, science?

a) yes.
b) no.

why?

Mathematics deals in proof. In that respect it is unlike other sciences. For example (to give you an easy one) Parallel Projection preserves equipolence. This can be proven to ALWAYS be the case within Euclidean space. OTOH, the generality of science deals in evidence for any given hypothesis, never in proofs. On the one hand, one could argue that mathematics is not science. On the other hand one could argue that it is since it follows all of the other precepts of science such as peer review etc. And people debate this.

Personally, I would classify mathematics as a science. But guess what? Mathematics doesn't care.

3. Do you consider history, science?

a) yes.
b) no.

why?

No, because too much of it is argued and interpreted. Take the historical reality of jesus. There is no way to firmly come down on one side or the other.

4. Do you consider biology, science?

a) yes.
b) no.

why?

Yes, because it deals in evidence for biological processes.

5. Do you consider geology, science?

a) yes.
b) no.

why?

Yes. Because it deals in evidence for geological processes.

Your turn:

6. Do you consider homeopathy, science?

a) yes.
b) no.

why?


ETA: BTW You are aware that multicoloured large fonts are generally considered on the internet to be the callsign of the crank. I recommend you don't do it.

 

[Pixel42]

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

In the majority of cases, yes. In a minority of cases, no.

- If so, how?

By investigating the rigour with which the scientific method has been followed.

 

[xjx388]

I like this angle and have heard it before. Do you know its source?

I just wrote what I thought. I’m sure I’ve read similar before; but, at this point, it’s just been coalesced into my thought matrix.

 

[xjx388]

In the majority of cases, yes. In a minority of cases, no.


By investigating the rigour with which the scientific method has been followed.

That last bit is about as close to a demarcation we can get in the real world.

I’m not saying that the philosophy of science is completely worthless, but it’s no tool to use when determining whether or not a particular idea is likely to be true or not. I’m not trying to cast aspersions on the OP, but I’ve seen this kind of “what is science, even?” argument used to defend silly ideas before.

 

[Sideroxylon]

I'm not at all familiar with the details of string theory, but I'm pretty sure it makes some predictions which can be tested. Multiverse theory, I'm not sure there is any way to test it, so it kind of resides on the borderland between science and philosophy. It's an interesting idea, but maybe not provable or falsifiable.

As for homeopathy, it doesn't even make it to the level of pseudoscience. It doesn't really even pretend to be based on any kind of evidence, and one of its central claims, that the higher the dilution, the stronger the "medicine" is easily observable to be the exact opposite of reality.

ETA:

Scientism: A word made up by people who are butt-hurt that their most cherished beliefs are not supported (or are clearly refuted) by actual evidence. It's very popular among flat-earthers, and I guess it's starting to catch on with believers in homeopathy. Not that there's a lot of difference between the two.

Note: The fact that people have declined to answer your foolish question, and posit that, between science and pseudoscience, there is a gray area, which you might call bad science, or maybe just experimental error, in no way refutes science.

Etymology plucked from your bum.

 

[JimOfAllTrades]

In the majority of cases, yes. In a minority of cases, no.


By investigating the rigour with which the scientific method has been followed.

Very good answer. OP, read this until you understand it.

 

[Sideroxylon]

OP, people including yourself operate on a daily basis without formulas that provide certainty in all cases. The demarcation problem is just explorations of modern philosophy. In the post modern age we no longer expect to find the foundational certainty that Descartes dug for. You have some fine responses so far addressing the point useful distinctions can be made. Foundationalism is a dead horse.

Putting aside the weird slander angle that seems to be driving this, a court has famously made a judgment with some basis in coming down on a demarcation question.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District

Are you or others considering legal action against forum members over alleged slander of a homeopathy advocate?

 

[Robin]

You were arguing that the observation that we lack currently a necessary and sufficient criterion of demarcation between science and pseudo-science/nonscience is not a valid philosophical problem.

No, it is not up to me to decide what it a valid philosophical problem and what is not, I leave that to philosophers.

I am just saying that it is not a big problem for the rest of us.

I'm afraid it is a genuine one, we cannot just dismiss it apriori as being 'semantics' or even reject the whole philosophy of science as being 'useless' (as some seem to think here).

We have to offer an argument which to show that we can still talk meaningfully about a demarcation between science and pseudo-science even in the absence of the very narrow criterion which the OP starter wants (and not only him, Laudan is quite influential in the philosophical circles). Otherwise almost everything is scientific (including ID and so on, they would be entitled at least to be presented to the public as scientific etc, albeit scientists will still prefer the theories offering the greatest empirical support).

Again, this is flawed reasoning.

As I said it is like saying that since we do not have a clear cut demarcation between "inside" and "outside" that we must therefore classify everything as inside.

There are cases where, when I am only part way through a doorway for example, I could not say if I were inside or outside. But that does not require that I am obliged to consider someone halfway down the street to be classified as inside my house.

In the same way there are cases (like some evolutionary psychology) where I can't use my criteria to distinguish whether it is science or pseudo science.

But that does not imply that I am obliged to regard Creation Science as a science, my criteria, as I showed earlier, leaves Creation Science half-way down the street, so to speak.

The other point is, it is just a word. People are entitled to use words as they please.

So what if Intelligent Design gets called 'science'? That entitles them to nothing. There are plenty of people who get rejected from publication because their work is substandard. So if some want to classify it as science, then fine - it is bad science and not fit for publication.

You seem to think that sticking a label - 'science' - on something is capable of validating bad reasoning. If the only value of science was the label then we would be in big trouble.

In fact there are plenty of mainstream biologists who are perfectly willing to take the claims of ID head on and treat them just as they would treat any claim in biology.

 

[Robin]

I was trying to think of a real world situation that dvhpb could address.

According to theory, a windmill is most efficient with two blades, and two blades are all a windmill needs.A two bladed windmill is theoretically ideal. Designers, using the theory, made windmills with two blades, and the blades kept falling off. Based on experience, a small maker of windmills determined that those made with three blades would work reliably and for many years his windmills worked reliably. He may or may not have come up with any theories regarding the peculiar forces that affect a spinning windmill when it swivels, but for many years thereafter designers of large windmills, wedded to theory, continued to make them with two blades, and the blades kept falling off. Eventually, theory caught up with practice, and nowadays we see three bladed windmills everywhere.

Are the people designing those windmills committing episteme or techne? Why?

The real world is full of examples in which technological designs fail in ways their initial theories did not even consider to exist. New theories lead to new technologies, and subsequent shortcomings of the technologies lead to refinements of the theories. At what point in this neverending process is either one or the other component pure?

Good example. I was thinking also of the process of prototyping in general.

I don't think it is even controversial in philosophy that Plato was right that these two concepts are inseparably intertwined.

 

[Robin]

What exactly is one being accused of when one is accused of 'scientism'?

No-one has been able to explain that to me.

It just seems to be one of those things people shout when they can't think of anything else to say.

I looked it up and one source says:

"excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques."

Is that it?

 

[Sideroxylon]

What exactly is one being accused of when one is accused of 'scientism'?

No-one has been able to explain that to me.

It just seems to be one of those things people shout when they can't think of anything else to say.

I looked it up and one source says:

"excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques."

Is that it?

Advocating application of the method into areas where it seems stretched to breaking point? See Sam Harris claiming science can answer moral questions.

Don’t have a problem with that kind of optimism. Pushing boundaries is how we learn and new concepts are born.

A pigheaded disparaging of all other “ways of knowing” while advocating science. We have seen that manifest in attacks on the contribution of philosophy on these forums.

The thoughtful and broadly educated Carl Sagan is no poster boy for scientism.

 

[arthwollipot]

As read in the first post my only "agenda" is to learn from all of you.

That is clearly not true. You haven't paid attention to a single thing any of us has said.

 

[Robin]

Advocating application of the method into areas where it seems stretched to breaking point? See Sam Harris claiming science can answer moral questions.

Don’t have a problem with that kind of optimism. Pushing boundaries is how we learn and new concepts are born.

A pigheaded disparaging of all other “ways of knowing” while advocating science. We have seen that manifest in attacks on the contribution of philosophy on these forums.

The thoughtful and broadly educated Carl Sagan is no poster boy for scientism.

Oh well, I concede that there are such people as you describe.

And, yes, putting Sagan in that category, never mind making him the poster boy for it, is laughable.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

In the majority of cases, yes. In a minority of cases, no.


By investigating the rigour with which the scientific method has been followed.

I'd take it a step further. The most obvious difference between science and pseudo science is that with science the conclusion is determined by the evidence avaliable, with pseudo science the evidence is selected to support the predecided conclusion.

 

[Robin]

We have to offer an argument which to show that we can still talk meaningfully about a demarcation between science and pseudo-science even in the absence of the very narrow criterion which the OP starter wants (and not only him, Laudan is quite influential in the philosophical circles).

But I have just read the Laudan article and he is arguing exactly the opposite, that we don't need that demarcation, that we can accept or dismiss claims on the merits of their arguments, irrespective of whether they merit the label 'scientific'.

That is pretty much my position. In fact the very first post I made in my very first online forum (some 18 years ago or so) was saying just this, that it added nothing to say that Intelligent Design was not science or that it was pseudo-science, and that if we are to address these claims at all we should meet the arguments head on and show why they are wrong.

It didn't go down well, everyone assumed I was throwing shade for the ID movement.

All the same, this does not imply that we cannot classify some processes as pseudo-scientific, we can. It just means that it is not terribly important that we can do that.

 

[Robin]

I'd take it a step further. The most obvious difference between science and pseudo science is that with science the conclusion is determined by the evidence avaliable, with pseudo science the evidence is selected to support the predecided conclusion.

This is what I and others have also said, the matter of whether evidence or belief takes precedence is an important necessary condition.

Something that may have been missed is that if we wanted to reliably determine if something is scientific, we would have to supply the necessary and sufficient conditions for it to be scientific.

On the other hand if we want to reliably determine if something is not scientific, we would only have to know some of the necessary conditions for something to be scientific.

Some things, like Creation Science, fail on this criterion alone.

 

[Irony]

This is awfully familiar. It feels like arguing with a creationist who insists you cite a paper proving that dogs turn into cats or admit that evolution is a hoax.

To answer, you won't find a line of demarcation because there isn't one. Science is a method, not a conclusion, and as such no conclusion can be called "scientific" in and of itself. The "scientific" nature of a conclusion depends on the manner in which it was arrived at.

Let's take, say, ESP as an example. It is entirely possible to study it scientifically. This has, in fact, been done repeatedly. The conclusion, after study (and revealing a few hoaxes) was that there is no credible evidence that ESP actually exists. This in no way means that the subject is closed. People are free to test the idea further, and new evidence may change the consensus, but it would do so only after replications, peer review, etc.
That's science.

On the other hand you have people who insist it is real and either don't care what the tests say or conduct their own "tests" which are contrived specifically to reach a particular conclusion. Any refutations or failures at replication will be ignored, dismissed for nonsensical reasons, or be straight up declared a conspiracy.
That's pseudo-science.

You won't find a clear way to categorize scientific and pseudo-scientific ideas because it isn't the ideas themselves which are the determining factor.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

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.

Science

(from the Latin word scientia, meaning "knowledge") is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.

Pseudoscience

consists of statements, beliefs, or practices that are claimed to be both scientific and factual but are incompatible with the scientific method

If it uses the scientific method to make testable claims then it's science. If it claims to do so but doesn't use the scientific method then it's pseudoscience.

Absolutely certain, by definition.

 

[Giordano]

This is awfully familiar. It feels like arguing with a creationist who insists you cite a paper proving that dogs turn into cats or admit that evolution is a hoax.

To answer, you won't find a line of demarcation because there isn't one. Science is a method, not a conclusion, and as such no conclusion can be called "scientific" in and of itself. The "scientific" nature of a conclusion depends on the manner in which it was arrived at.

Let's take, say, ESP as an example. It is entirely possible to study it scientifically. This has, in fact, been done repeatedly. The conclusion, after study (and revealing a few hoaxes) was that there is no credible evidence that ESP actually exists. This in no way means that the subject is closed. People are free to test the idea further, and new evidence may change the consensus, but it would do so only after replications, peer review, etc.
That's science.

On the other hand you have people who insist it is real and either don't care what the tests say or conduct their own "tests" which are contrived specifically to reach a particular conclusion. Any refutations or failures at replication will be ignored, dismissed for nonsensical reasons, or be straight up declared a conspiracy.
That's pseudo-science.

You won't find a clear way to categorize scientific and pseudo-scientific ideas because it isn't the ideas themselves which are the determining factor.

^Exactly.

I personally have little patience with theoretical discussions of the philosophy of science. I view science as the method, the practical, not a philosophy:

“Science is magic that works.”

What that actually means is to test ideas, be willing to abandon or alter the ideas based on the results of the tests, and to test the modified or new ideas again. The result is the development of ideas “that work” no matter who or when they are applied. e.g. Einstein’s theories or... cellphones.

But even then science values constantly questioning and testing even accepted ideas.

There is nothing unscientific about testing ESP. It can be done very scientifically. And the results so far? It does not work.