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

[Jack by the hedge]

devhbd, you set the parameters tightly within a space you knew there would be no papers found. You also chose the one medium you wanted us to use...

And also built a strawman version of our behaviour by declaring that we had all accused some homeopath of being a pseudoscientist "with certainty".

In the end, the exact demarcation between science and pseudoscience is rather irrelevant as anything that might be regarded as science can be studied, as Pixel42 said, to see how rigorously scientific method was followed. The criterion for accepting something as valid science is not whether it crosses some threshold and meets the test of "yes, but is it pseudoscience?" as there are lots of ways to do bad science, or no science at all, and pseudoscience (kidding other people you're doing science or kidding yourself you're doing science) is only one of them.

The precise demarcation so far as homeopathy is concerned is certainly not a problem. It's not a borderline case. It doesn't work. Pretending it works isn't science.

 

[devhdb]

devhbd, you set the parameters tightly within a space you knew there would be no papers found.

You are right, maybe it's NOT a black or white choice. Yet, when someone addresses some investigator as a pseudoscientist, he is not casting much doubts about it, right?

Maybe we shouldn't say that a certain homeopath is 100% pseudoscientific but 80% pseudoscientific, or 30% or even 99.5% pseudoscientific, right?

Maybe that scientist investigating homeopathy is going through a proto-science phase, in the same way that medicine fails:

"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.[1] The US Food and Drug Administration in 1977–1990 found flaws in 10–20% of medical studies.[2] 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.[3][4]

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"."

References:

1 - Ioannidis JA (13 July 2005). "Contradicted and initially stronger effects in highly cited clinical research". JAMA. 294 (2): 218–228. doi:10.1001/jama.294.2.218. PMID 16014596.
2 - Glick, J. Leslie (1992). "Scientific data audit—A key management tool". Accountability in Research. 2 (3): 153–168. doi:10.1080/08989629208573811.
3 - Begley, C. G.; Ellis, L. M. (2012). "Drug Development: Raise Standards for Preclinical Cancer Research". Nature. 483 (7391): 531–533. Bibcode:2012Natur.483..531B. doi:10.1038/483531a. PMID 22460880.
4 - Begley, C. G. (2013). "Reproducibility: Six red flags for suspect work". Nature. 497 (7450): 433–434. Bibcode:2013Natur.497..433B. doi:10.1038/497433a. PMID 23698428.
5 - Ioannidis, JPA (2016). "Why Most Clinical Research Is Not Useful". PLOS Med. 13 (6): e1002049. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1002049. PMC 4915619. PMID 27328301.
6 - Ioannidis, John P. A. (August 1, 2005). "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False". PLOS Medicine. 2 (8): e124. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124. ISSN 1549-1277. PMC 1182327. PMID 16060722.

Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
John P. A. Ioannidis
PLOS
Published: August 30, 2005
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124


Now what? Ha.

When you call someone a pseudoscientific there's no middle way with words here: such investigator is either

a) a pseudoscientist
b) a scientist

It's either 0% or 100%, right? In the same way that you cannot be 30% pregnant: you either ARE or ARE NOT.


So he could sue you for slander unless you properly justify how is it possible that he is a 100% pseudoscientist.

Hence it is ABSOLUTELY LEGITIMATE to ask for such "black or white" Criterion of Demarcation.

So, bring it on, after 8 pages, I'm still waiting.

Thanks!

 

[Jack by the hedge]

<snip>

So he could sue you for slander unless you properly justify how is it possible that he is a 100% pseudoscientist.

Hence it is ABSOLUTELY LEGITIMATE to ask for such "black or white" Criterion of Demarcation.

So, bring it on, after 8 pages, I'm still waiting.

Thanks!

Logic fail.

The test for whether one has slandered another is not a percentage measure of how much of a <slanderous thing> the complainant can be proven to be.

The precision of a person's method for determining the demarcation between <slanderous thing> and <not slanderous thing> is not a relevant test for whether they were justified in classify another person as they did.

These errors are perhaps why you are still waiting.

 

[8enotto]

With this chip on your shoulder I will assume that homeopathy and being called a fraud strike close to home.

Screwing with the health of people and selling them diluted hope is fraud once money changes hands.

Now if your research comes up with a product or method that actually does make it a good, confirmed medicine, science can test it, and award you your deserved Nobel prize.

What has been done so far has not passed that bar. Good luck with your research meanwhile.

 

[devhdb]

The test for whether one has slandered another is not a percentage

Sure. Then when you call someone a pseudoscientific there's no middle way with words here: such investigator is either

a) a pseudoscientist
b) a scientist

Hence please tell us what logical and rational algorithm do you follow to discriminate them.

Me: I don't know, that's why I'm humble enough not to dare to address anyone as a pseudoscientist.

And you? What's your particular Criterion of Demarcation?

How do you JUSTIFY your black or white decision?

I want to hear. I genuinely want to learn from you.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Sure. Then when you call some time a daylight there's no middle way with words here: such a time of day is either

a) a day
b) a night

Hence please tell us what logical and rational algorithm do you follow to discriminate them.

Me: I don't know, that's why I'm humble enough not to dare to say it's daytime.

And you? What's your particular Criterion of Demarcation?

How do you JUSTIFY your black or white decision?

I want to hear. I genuinely want to learn from you.

 

[devhdb]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ioannidis

Most Research Findings Are False for Most Research Designs and for Most Fields

Corollary 1: The smaller the studies conducted in a scientific field, the less likely the research findings are to be true.
Corollary 2: The smaller the effect sizes in a scientific field, the less likely the research findings are to be true.
Corollary 3: The greater the number and the lesser the selection of tested relationships in a scientific field, the less likely the research findings are to be true.
Corollary 4: The greater the flexibility in designs, definitions, outcomes, and analytical modes in a scientific field, the less likely the research findings are to be true.
Corollary 5: The greater the financial and other interests and prejudices in a scientific field, the less likely the research findings are to be true.
Corollary 6: The hotter a scientific field (with more scientific teams involved), the less likely the research findings are to be true.

Source:

Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
John P. A. Ioannidis
PLOS
Published: August 30, 2005
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124

 

[Jack by the hedge]

It's like a battle between rules 4 and 6: who will prevail?

 

[Craig4]

You're saying the process works. The papers get published, and ripped to shreds and what survives the scrutiny prevails. All is as it should be.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

You're saying the process works.

Don't think they've actually said that here.

Just demanded that we justify our imaginary slandering of a non-existent hypothetical person who may or may not have declared the process works.

<edit> Oh, sorry, misunderstanding. I thought by the process you meant homeopathy. You meant the scientific process. Yes. They're saying it works. Which seems odd based on their body of work so far.

 

[Dave Rogers]

devhbd, you set the parameters tightly within a space you knew there would be no papers found. You also chose the one medium you wanted us to use.

It's a classic technique of the pseudoscientist. The creationist demanding to see evidence of a crocoduck, the 9/11 conspiracy theorist demanding to see evidence that jet fuel fires melt steel, and devhbd demanding to see a single scientific paper which definitively solves the demarcation problem, are all examples of the appeal to impossible - and, in fact, irrelevant - evidence. They aren't designed to enlighten or clarify, but to give the impression of having made, and had denied, a perfectly reasonable response.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

It's either 0% or 100%, right? In the same way that you cannot be 30% pregnant: you either ARE or ARE NOT.


So he could sue you for slander unless you properly justify how is it possible that he is a 100% pseudoscientist.

I suspect that, among all your other disingenuities, you're by no means as ignorant of the civil justice system as the above suggests. Yes, of course he could sue you for slander; but if, on the basis of balance of probability, the court determined that your description was a reasonable one, the suit would not succeed. Your rather bizarre appeal to jurisprudence (I think you may have created an new informal logical fallacy here) is in fact quite precisely counterfactual. Courts do not rule that everything is black or white; their primary purpose is to distinguish between shades of grey.

Dave

 

[Pixel42]

Sure. Then when you call someone a pseudoscientific there's no middle way with words here: such investigator is either

a) a pseudoscientist
b) a scientist

Hence please tell us what logical and rational algorithm do you follow to discriminate them.

I already told you, I look at how rigorously the investigator follows the scientific method.

For example: investigators who claim that homeopathy works base that claim either entirely on anecdotal evidence or on small, poorly blinded and controlled, studies. Investigators who conclude it to be no more effective than placebo base that conclusion on the largest and most rigorous studies.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

I think there are sufficient hints to be reasonably sure he/she is a homeopath.

Though that doesn't rule out them being a flat earther as well, of course. There's a mountain of objective evidence against both, so if they can ignore one they can surely also ignore the other.

But given that a given area on our round Earth can appear flat, what's the line of demarkation between a flat area and a round one?

 

[Wudang]

And also built a strawman version of our behaviour by declaring that we had all accused some homeopath of being a pseudoscientist "with certainty".

That takes me back to the British Chiropractic Assn suing Simon Singh when he said they promoted "bogus treatments". The treatments are decidely bogus as repeated trials and meta-reviews show. However Simon insisted that there was a difference between saying they "promoted bogus treatments" and saying they knowingly did so. He won.
I spent decades training in tai chi chuan as a martial art and can confirm there are lots and lots of nice sincere people who believe the BS they are peddling works. (also applies to a lot of the tai chi teachers)
But if people have never been taught how to examine data and assumptions and maybe just to "express themselves" how can we blame them?

 

[Craig4]

Don't think they've actually said that here.

Just demanded that we justify our imaginary slandering of a non-existent hypothetical person who may or may not have declared the process works.

<edit> Oh, sorry, misunderstanding. I thought by the process you meant homeopathy. You meant the scientific process. Yes. They're saying it works. Which seems odd based on their body of work so far.

My fault. I should have quoted him.

 

[devhdb]

I'm sorry about rules 4 & 6, thanks for pointing them out to me.

 

[devhdb]

Let's do an interesting exercise of imagination.

Imagine you are the Minister of Science of your country.

You got $100 million to assign to research programs.

There are 3 candidates:

- The String theory framework of theories: might not be falsable yet. Maybe never will be.
- Multiverse theory: might not be falsable yet. Maybe never will be.
- Homeopathy: it IS falsable. It only needs more experimentation and hence more funds (in the same way that some medicine fails and needs more experiments to be conducted ->

See:
Most Research Findings Are False for Most Research Designs and for Most Fields

Corollary 1: The smaller the studies conducted in a scientific field, the less likely the research findings are to be true.
Corollary 2: The smaller the effect sizes in a scientific field, the less likely the research findings are to be true.
Corollary 3: The greater the number and the lesser the selection of tested relationships in a scientific field, the less likely the research findings are to be true.
Corollary 4: The greater the flexibility in designs, definitions, outcomes, and analytical modes in a scientific field, the less likely the research findings are to be true.
Corollary 5: The greater the financial and other interests and prejudices in a scientific field, the less likely the research findings are to be true.
Corollary 6: The hotter a scientific field (with more scientific teams involved), the less likely the research findings are to be true.

Source:

Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
John P. A. Ioannidis
PLOS
Published: August 30, 2005
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124

See:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=13059362#post13059362
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=13059324#post13059324)


What amount of money would you assign to each of them and why?

 

[Dave Rogers]

Let's do an interesting exercise of imagination.

Imagine you are the Minister of Science of your country.

You got $100 million to assign to research programs.

There are 3 candidates:

- The String theory framework of theories: might not be falsable yet. Maybe never will be.
- Multiverse theory: might not be falsable yet. Maybe never will be.
- Homeopathy: it IS falsable. It only needs more experimentation and hence more funds (in the same way that some medicine fails and needs more experiments to be conducted ->

[…]

What amount of money would you assign to each of them and why?

All of it on multiverse theory. If homeopathy still needs more experimentation to be falsified, we're already in an alternate universe.

Dave

 

[Pixel42]

Homeopathy is not just falsifiable it has been falsified beyond reasonable doubt. Spending more public money on it cannot be justified.

Of course there's nothing to stop those who persist in believing in it, despite the overwhelming objective evidence against it, continuing to research it in the hope of eventually making a convincing case for it. But they must fund such research themselves.