• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

devhdb said:
So he could sue you for slander unless you properly justify how is it possible that he is a 100% pseudoscientist.
Click to expand...

No. That's not even close to how defamation works. The plaintiff's case would have to rely on the demarcation problem already having been solved to a legally cognizable degree.
 
devhdb said:
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?
Click to expand...
The problem with pretending that no-one has answered the question is that devhdb didn't read any of the answers.

If he had he would have read that it is not the subject matter but the process which is either scientific or not.

If I could be sure that the homeopathy study was being done by a fiercely independent, competent group then, sure, I might give the lions share to the homeopathy study. If so many people are being sold little bottles of plain water with the dubious claim that it will cure them of something, then a study of this claim might be useful.

I mean I doubt that any of us, not even devhdb, is daft enough to suppose that homeopathy actually works, so a properly conducted study of it might be useful.
 
The thing is that if I was being sued by a homeopath for saying he is a pseudo-scientist, then I should first confirm that he was indeed claiming to be a scientist.

Then I would not have to show that he was a pseudo-scientist, I would only have to show that he was not a scientist. If he is not a scientist and claiming to be a scientist then, by definition, he is a pseudo-scientist.

So the only demarcation relevant is between an endeavour being a scientific or not.

I would not have called someone a pseudo-scientist then I would have had some knowledge of the process that I was referring to and then I would show that it did not meet the criteria that scientific enterprises must have, ie a precedence of evidence over belief, a hypothesis that could reasonably be said to follow from the observational premises and so on.

I would only have to show that his process did not satisfy one of the necessary conditions for being scientific in order to show that it was not scientific.

I would only have to show that I could have formed this opinion beyond reasonable doubt.

As I said, I would be much more likely to be sued by a homeopath for pointing out that he was a con-artist.
 
devhdb said:
[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/m6dKupP.jpg[/qimg]



8 pages of entertaining debate and no one of those who happily address some investigators as pseudoscientists with CERTAINTY (=as a black or white designation, beyond reasonable doubt) has answered question #1 yet:



"Cite ONE paper that discerns Science from Pseudoscience with CERTAINTY."

As of now, all the evidence proves that I'm winning the challenge.

But I might be wrong: hence, please cite ONE paper, change my mind and win the debate.


Thanks.


SCIENTISM prevails.


OR realize that you are arbitraryly using a term that you don't justify and stop addressing some investigators as pseudoscients, for, by not providing us with a rational and logical way to you are proving that you DO NOT have a reason (=a Demarcation Criterion) to justify your

BELIEFS.



[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/Tocg3KZ.png[/qimg]
[qimg]https://media.giphy.com/media/Yrqvzv4lQherQuXSpY/giphy.gif[/qimg]


;)
Click to expand...


I'm not sure what you 'won' here. The problem with the lack currently of a strong criterion is real and widely accepted in academic circles as a problem (in spite of the opposition here) but this does not mean that Science does not have sufficiently distinct methods or that we cannot make a meaningfully distinction between science and pseudo science (as i said at least on a provisional basis). The fact that some pseudo-science may find it's way in a science of tomorrow it's not a problem either given that fallibilism is at the core of science. There are indeed supporters of scientism (excessive belief in the power of current scientific knowledge and techniques) but science itself need not to be that authoritarian. I'm afraid the demarcation problem is not the insurmountable peak which you pretend, I would say that you are rather on the losing side.
 
Last edited:
Larry Laudan
Philosopher of science and epistemologist.
Laudan took his PhD in Philosophy at Princeton University, and then taught at University College London and, for many years, at the University of Pittsburgh. Subsequently, he taught at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University, University of Hawaii and the National Autonomous University of Mexico. He presently teaches at the University of Texas, Austin. His more recent work has been on legal epistemology.
https://www.ias.edu/scholars/larry-laudan


https://i.imgur.com/fk13yVz.png


"And what makes a belief scientific?
[...]
The question is both uninteresting and, judging by its checkered past, intractable.
If we would stand up and be counted on the side or reason, we ought to drop terms like "pseudo-science" and "unscientific" from our vocabulary;
they are just hollow phrases which do only emotive work for us. As such, they are more suited to the rhetoric of politicians and Scottish sociologists of knowledge than to that of empirical researchers."

Freely available at: http://www.blc.arizona.edu/courses/schaffer/249/Darwin and Philosophers/Laudan - Demarcartion.pdf


9 pages. 300+ comments. Not ONE single paper cited yet.

I win. :cool:

:thumbsup:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
devhdb said:
:boggled:
Click to expand...

What's your problem with this?

Does it trouble you that people who have not studied the evidence for, say, whether Velikovski was a crank, might tend instead to trust the opinions of people who have?

<edit> Ah. I see you have edited your quotation to indicate the part you are interested in. Well, it strikes me that if he is correct and the question of whether something is scientific is uninteresting and we can simply do away with the terms "scientific" and "pseudoscientific" then it seems to me one would be left with very weak grounds upon which to sue for slander if one was accused of being in a category which had no useful meaning. In fact one's determination to sue might lend weight to the argument that it really does matter after all.
 
Last edited:
Robin said:
The thing is that if I was being sued by a homeopath for saying he is a pseudo-scientist, then I should first confirm that he was indeed claiming to be a scientist.
Click to expand...

It's even easier than that. A homeopath would have the burden to show that any third party to which you communicated that appellation knew what the word meant, and that this meaning would be agreed upon by any number of "reasonable persons" (i.e., a jury) as a credible allegation of fact (as opposed to, say, a personal insult).

He would have to show that you were at least negligent, if not outright malicious, in assessing whatever about the homeopath led you to make your statement. No, that does not require you to prove that he's "100% pseudoscientist." In fact, if you intend truth to be your defense, you'd probably only have to show one instance of what would be commonly thought of as pseudoscience on the plaintiff's part in order to justify your communication from a legal liability standpoint. Commensurately, if the court rules that the plaintiff is not a pseudoscientist, it does not then necessarily follow that he's been ruled a scientist. One can be neither a scientist nor a pseudoscientist. This proposed dichotomy simply doesn't exist in common law for this particular set of facts.

Then he would have to show that the agreed-upon and believed meaning was injurious to his actual reputation. Not the reputation he wished he had, but the one he actually had. That might involve ascertaining whether he previously had a reputation as a scientist in the eyes of others, but it doesn't have to. And it has bugger all to do with what he wanted to be in his own mind. Every person has a duty of care toward the reputations of his neighbors. He has no duty of care toward their fantasies.
 
devhdb said:
[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/TaAS0of.png[/qimg]

Read more: http://www.blc.arizona.edu/courses/schaffer/249/Darwin and Philosophers/Laudan - Demarcartion.pdf

:boggled:
Click to expand...

As I said earlier Laudan then has to be consistent and stop calling himself a philosopher of science and writing about science all the time.

If there is no distinction at all between a process which is scientific and a process which is not scientific then cutting your toenails could be called doing science.

If Laudan really wants to claim that something like cutting your toenails could be meaningfully called a scientific activity then he is simply saying that the word science has no meaning at all.

But apparently he wants have it both ways. He wants to ban the expression "not scientific" while still retaining the expression "scientific", which is simply incoherent.

On the other hand if Laudan would allow that cutting your toenails would not qualify as a scientific activity then he has stipulated that there are activities which are not scientific.

So, for example, if someone were to claim that they were a scientist because they cut their toenails, then Laudan would have to admit to there being cases where we could distinguish between science and its counterfeit.
 
Also, as I pointed out earlier, Laudan has to invent some fake history in order to make his claim.
 
devhdb said:
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?
Click to expand...


If I’m forced to spend the money on only those three candidates, I’d do 50-50 on the string and multiverse theories. 0 to homeopathy. Why? Because it’s been studied to death and no supporting evidence has been found. Not likely to be a good investment of public money.

Alternatively, if I could decide not to spend all the money at this time, I might send $10k each to the string and multiverse people and withhold further funding until more impactful candidates come around.
 
With regards to your three studies a minister of science would give money to.

1: String theory. Might be falsifiable and might, like all previously thought impractical physics lead to massive improvements to human life.
2: Multiverse theory: see 1:
3: Homeopathy, has been studied extensively and every single scientific study has shown it to behave no better than placebo.

The money would go to one and two. No need to throw more money down the homeopathy hole.

As others have pointed out, even though there might be no clear demarcation between night and day, we still know what night and day are.
In the same way homeopathy is clearly pseudoscience.
 
devhdb said:
Hi alfaniner, welcome!

Science is self-correcting.
Woo is self-contradicting.

I like that.

Please, for sake of argument, let's imagine the following:

- Scientist H investigates an hypothesis: if the relationship between Matter and Consciousness might mean that a certain amount of Matter diluted in water might heal a certain disease, for Matter and Consciousness might be one and the same thing.

He makes 10 experiments and he fails. He changes the conditions in his experiment. (i.e.: instead of making it at sea level he conducts his experiment 4.000 meters above sea level)
He makes 100 experiments and he fails. He changes the conditions in his experiment. (i.e.: he adds a bit of salt to each dilution).
He makes 1000 experiments and he fails. He changes the conditions in his experiment.
He makes 1000000 experiments and he fails. He changes the conditions in his experiment.

1. Is he self-correcting himself, hence being scientific?
2. What's the number of experiments that he has to make in order to ascertain that his hypothesis doesn't work?
3. In what particular way is the hypothesis that Matter and Consciousness might be one and the same would be self-contradicting?

Thanks! :-D
Click to expand...

How would the existence of a relationship between matter and consciousness indicate that an amount of matter diluted in water might heal any diseases?

What exactly is the experiment the scientist uses to test his hypothesis regarding the relationship between matter and consciousness?
 
devhdb said:
Larry Laudan
Philosopher of science and epistemologist.
Laudan took his PhD in Philosophy at Princeton University, and then taught at University College London and, for many years, at the University of Pittsburgh. Subsequently, he taught at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University, University of Hawaii and the National Autonomous University of Mexico. He presently teaches at the University of Texas, Austin. His more recent work has been on legal epistemology.
https://www.ias.edu/scholars/larry-laudan



[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/fk13yVz.png[/qimg]


"And what makes a belief scientific?
[...]
The question is both uninteresting and, judging by its checkered past, intractable.
If we would stand up and be counted on the side or reason, we ought to drop terms like "pseudo-science" and "unscientific" from our vocabulary;
they are just hollow phrases which do only emotive work for us. As such, they are more suited to the rhetoric of politicians and Scottish sociologists of knowledge than to that of empirical researchers."

Freely available at: http://www.blc.arizona.edu/courses/schaffer/249/Darwin and Philosophers/Laudan - Demarcartion.pdf


9 pages. 300+ comments. Not ONE single paper cited yet.

I win. :cool:

:thumbsup:
Click to expand...

Okay, you won. What does that get you? Certainly not a seat at the table. You won and yet the scientific world will go on as if you never existed. They will accomplish things and you won't. Homeopathy will remain the domain of frauds and quacks. The earth will remain a spheroid. The theories of Gravity, Evolution and Relativity will still be used to make predictions and describe the world. Congratulations on your victory. You'll never do anything with it.
 
devhdb said:
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?

Fine.

In that case, please, let me know:

- are Mathematics science?

- what kind of technology has produced String Theory?
- what kind of technology has produced the hypothesis of the Multiverse?

Are String Theory and/or the hypothesis of the Multiverse science of pseudoscience?

Thanks. :-)
Click to expand...

You aren't good at clarification. I have no idea what you want.
 
Just a point, I do hope the OP realizes that there really isn't much money spent on the various string theories or multiverse theory at all. For the most part, a handful of theoretical physicists work on those part time. Insisting on these as the only alternative to funding a multiply-falsified theory like homeopathy is ignorant, at best.

A better question might be:

You have $100 million dollars. Do you:
1. Invest in homeopathy research again, even though it's never shown any measurable effect?
2. Invest the money in traditional medical research, such as developing and testing vaccines for new illnesses?
 
So a claim like homeopathy, which is not novel (224 years and counting) and which is contradicted by massive amounts of existing evidence, is indeed an extraordinary claim which requires extraordinary evidence.

Glad we cleared that up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom