Real Science & Pseudo Science
Pseudoscience is an English word and defined (variously) in dictionaries.
My point is that it doesn't have a scientific definition. ...
There is no scientifically agreed definition of "pseudoscience".
I disagree. There is in fact a very precise and very well understood "scientific" definition of
pseudoscience: It is fake science.
I put "scientific" in quotation marks because, in truth there is no such thing as a "scientific" definition. Science is a process, and neither a product nor a goal unto itself. Therefore, when I say that the definition is "scientific" I do not mean to say that it was arrived at by a scientific process, but rather I do mean that it is the definition understood by all scientists who use it (and I might add, by the large majority of non-scientists who use it).
Perhaps if the word "pseudoscience" was better defined, and more generally agreed upon, we'd see the word used more often in scientific papers.
I think of this as a not too clever attempt to avoid the obvious. Every word in the English language, or any other language for that matter, suffers from exactly the same condition. That's because all languages (or at least all of them that I am familiar with) combine dictionary definitions and literary context to arrive at the meanings of words (quiz: What is the meaning of this sentence:
Flying planes can be dangerous. ?) So all words, even whole sentences, require an understanding of context to get at the meaning, as well as the dictionary.
In the context of this discussion, there is no ambiguity in the meaning of "pseudoscience"; we all know what it means, and so do you, at least well enough to understand the discussion. But of course, the sooner we do away with precision in language and thought, the sooner we open to door to sloppy ideas and wishful thinking, which we can then treat as legitimate because we would not be "open minded" if we didn't. This is a philosophical approach which I reject with extreme prejudice.
The difference between science & pseudoscience is founded on methodology, not on the final result, so when I label Mozina's comments "pseudoscience" I am leveling a criticism against the manner in which he argues his position.
We must remember that, above all other things, science is a
process and not a product. Because it is a process, it is applicable over a surprisingly expansive philosophical landscape, though obviously easier in some cases than others. The phenomenological study of the natural world, known in centuries past as "natural philosophy", but nowadays better known as "natural science", is one particular area of human endeavor where the methods of science are particularly well suited. Furthermore, many branches of natural science (physics perhaps chief among them) have left behind the era when prose would suffice to advance even complicated ideas, and have entered the era where mathematics is the language of choice. This is not surprising, since mathematics allows for, and indeed
forces a clarity of though and precision of communication that no other language can rival. As long as we limit ourselves to prose we open the door to constant arguments over what this or that expression really means. But once we switch to mathematics, all of that ambiguity disappears. That's why pseudoscientists, with rare exceptions, avoid mathematics entirely, as Mozina for instance explicitly does, so that clarity and disambiguation can be avoided at all costs.
The reliance on prose over mathematics is a key indication that pseudoscience and not science is the topic of discussion. It is, by itself, a sufficient reason for unambiguously labeling the arguments made by Mozina in this and other threads as pseudoscience. It applies as well to the electric star and electric universe arguments of Thornhill & Scott & etc., as you probably already knew I would say. They are equally pseudoscientific, although generally somewhat more clever and less blatantly stupid. If we ever have a thread on this EU hypothesis I will be happy to expand in detail on my arguments, as will others as well I suspect.
Suffice to say that I disagree with the wishy-washy notion that the word "pseudoscience" be avoided lest we demonstrate a lack of openmindedness, or perhaps accidently offend someone. Words are a poor enough means of communication and I think we should use all the words we have.
:
!
