Hi all,
I consider myself a true skeptic in the sense that I know that I know nothing... and even I couldn't be sure of that, may I add.
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.
This is a collective didactic experiment within the community meant to learn from everyone and not to attack anyone but belief systems. Hence, please don't feel offended if your scientific paradigms are questioned for it's nothing personal.
Please, debate nicely, politely and with well manners and I'll do the same. Thanks.
Without further ado, I would like to posit you 5 questions:
1. 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.
2. In case that you affirm to be able to discern between science and pseudoscience with certainty, then: what logical, rational and consistent method do you follow to affirm whether String Theory or the Multiverse hypothesis are science or pseudoscience? Are they falseable? And, if they are falseable, how exactly? What type of observable 'datum', directly or indirectly mensurable would refute each of them?
3. What logical, rational and consistent algorithm do you follow to be able to distinguish if Matter and Consciousness are one and the same thing?
4. Can you describe the redness of red as if you were describing it to a man born with blind, from the subjective experience of a self-conscious 'I', 'emerged'? from a viscous matter called brain?
5. What degree of certainty (in percentage) would you demand from a judge to justify his sentence to you for condemning you to indemnify with $100.000 and 5 years of prison for you having slandered the honor of a certain homeopath calling her 'pseudoscientific' without justifying which Demarcation Criterion did you use to discern between Science and Pseudoscience with certainty? 70%?, 95% of certainty? What value (precisely) would leave you satisfied so that your prison sentence would be rationally justified?
My answers:
1. I DON'T KNOW.
2. I DON'T KNOW.
3. I DON'T KNOW.
4. NO.
5. I DON'T KNOW.
FAQ:
Science is what follows THE Scientific Method.
Fine.
In that case:
How do you precisely define THE Scientific Method?
Is it valid for natural sciences and for social sciences as well?
Is Falsifiability a necessary and sufficient condition for a certain assertion to be considered scientific? If not, why?
Most importantly: could you please rebut each one of Karl Popper's 3 arguments against the existence of the Scientific Method?
i.e.:
The Preface to Popper's Realism and the Aim of Science (1983)
A talk to a meeting of the Fellows of the Centre for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences at Stanford in November 1956.
“As a rule, I begin my lectures on Scientific Method by telling my students that
Scientific Method does not exist. I add that I ought to know, having been for a time, the one and only professor of this non-existent subject within the British Commonwealth.”
—Realism and the Aim of Science, Karl Popper, p. 5
I assert that no scientific method exists in any of these three senses. To put it in a more direct way:
(1) There is no method of discovering a scientific theory.
(2) There is no method of ascertaining the truth of a scientific hypothesis, i. e., no method of verification.
(3) There is no method of ascertaining whether a hypothesis is “probable”, or probably true.
—Realism and the Aim of Science, Karl Popper, p. 6
I believe that the so-called method of science consists in this kind of criticism [severe]. Scientific theories are distinguished from myths merely in being criticizable, and in being open to modifications in the light of criticism. They can be neither verified nor probabilified.
—Realism and the Aim of Science, Karl Popper, p. 7
This alleged but non-existent method [of science] is that of collecting observations and then “drawing conclusions” from them. It is slavishly aped by some historians who believe that they can collect documentary evidence which corresponding to the observations of natural science, forms the “empirical basis” for their conclusions.
This alleged method is one that can never be put into effect: you can neither collect observations nor documentary evidence if you do not first have a problem.
—Objective Knowledge, Karl Popper, p. 186
“What do I teach my students? And how can I teach them?”
Source:
"Realism and the Aim of Science: From the Postscript to The Logic of Scientific Discovery", by Karl Popper, Routledge, 1983.
ISBN-10: 0-415-08400-8. 464 pp. Pages 5 and 6:
Extract @ Google Books: /books?id=tlowU8nS2ygC
Also:
"The theory of natural selection may be so formulated that it is far from tautological. In this case it is not only testable, but it turns out to be NOT STRICTLY UNIVERSALLY TRUE. There seem to be exceptions, as with so many biological theories; and considering the random character o f the variations on which natural selection operates, the occurrence of exceptions is not surprising. Thus not all phenomena of evolution are explained by natural selection alone. Yet in every particular case it is a challenging research program to show how far natural selection can possibly be held responsible for the evolution of a particular organ or behavioral program."
Sources:
[1] Popper, Karl (1976). Unended Quest. La Salle: Open Court. ISBN 0875483437.
[2] Autobiography, Karl Popper. "I consider darwinism as metaphysics and as a research program. It is metaphysics because it is NOT TESTABLE."
Google Books: /books?id=NyCEnehPMd8C&lpg=PP1&dq=unended ques
[3] Miller, David (1985). Popper selections. pp. 239-246. ISBN 978-0691020310.
[4] Evolutionary epistemology, rationality, and the sociology of knowledge, by Karl Popper. pp. 143-147.
Google Books: /books?id=QnFiTrCzg5oC&lpg=PA143&ots=c7x_hTlgH
Happy debate!
I consider myself a true skeptic in the sense that I know that I know nothing... and even I couldn't be sure of that, may I add.
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.
This is a collective didactic experiment within the community meant to learn from everyone and not to attack anyone but belief systems. Hence, please don't feel offended if your scientific paradigms are questioned for it's nothing personal.
Please, debate nicely, politely and with well manners and I'll do the same. Thanks.
Without further ado, I would like to posit you 5 questions:
1. 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.
2. In case that you affirm to be able to discern between science and pseudoscience with certainty, then: what logical, rational and consistent method do you follow to affirm whether String Theory or the Multiverse hypothesis are science or pseudoscience? Are they falseable? And, if they are falseable, how exactly? What type of observable 'datum', directly or indirectly mensurable would refute each of them?
3. What logical, rational and consistent algorithm do you follow to be able to distinguish if Matter and Consciousness are one and the same thing?
4. Can you describe the redness of red as if you were describing it to a man born with blind, from the subjective experience of a self-conscious 'I', 'emerged'? from a viscous matter called brain?
5. What degree of certainty (in percentage) would you demand from a judge to justify his sentence to you for condemning you to indemnify with $100.000 and 5 years of prison for you having slandered the honor of a certain homeopath calling her 'pseudoscientific' without justifying which Demarcation Criterion did you use to discern between Science and Pseudoscience with certainty? 70%?, 95% of certainty? What value (precisely) would leave you satisfied so that your prison sentence would be rationally justified?
My answers:
1. I DON'T KNOW.
2. I DON'T KNOW.
3. I DON'T KNOW.
4. NO.
5. I DON'T KNOW.
FAQ:
Science is what follows THE Scientific Method.
Fine.
In that case:
How do you precisely define THE Scientific Method?
Is it valid for natural sciences and for social sciences as well?
Is Falsifiability a necessary and sufficient condition for a certain assertion to be considered scientific? If not, why?
Most importantly: could you please rebut each one of Karl Popper's 3 arguments against the existence of the Scientific Method?
i.e.:
The Preface to Popper's Realism and the Aim of Science (1983)
A talk to a meeting of the Fellows of the Centre for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences at Stanford in November 1956.
“As a rule, I begin my lectures on Scientific Method by telling my students that
Scientific Method does not exist. I add that I ought to know, having been for a time, the one and only professor of this non-existent subject within the British Commonwealth.”
—Realism and the Aim of Science, Karl Popper, p. 5
I assert that no scientific method exists in any of these three senses. To put it in a more direct way:
(1) There is no method of discovering a scientific theory.
(2) There is no method of ascertaining the truth of a scientific hypothesis, i. e., no method of verification.
(3) There is no method of ascertaining whether a hypothesis is “probable”, or probably true.
—Realism and the Aim of Science, Karl Popper, p. 6
I believe that the so-called method of science consists in this kind of criticism [severe]. Scientific theories are distinguished from myths merely in being criticizable, and in being open to modifications in the light of criticism. They can be neither verified nor probabilified.
—Realism and the Aim of Science, Karl Popper, p. 7
This alleged but non-existent method [of science] is that of collecting observations and then “drawing conclusions” from them. It is slavishly aped by some historians who believe that they can collect documentary evidence which corresponding to the observations of natural science, forms the “empirical basis” for their conclusions.
This alleged method is one that can never be put into effect: you can neither collect observations nor documentary evidence if you do not first have a problem.
—Objective Knowledge, Karl Popper, p. 186
“What do I teach my students? And how can I teach them?”
Source:
"Realism and the Aim of Science: From the Postscript to The Logic of Scientific Discovery", by Karl Popper, Routledge, 1983.
ISBN-10: 0-415-08400-8. 464 pp. Pages 5 and 6:
Extract @ Google Books: /books?id=tlowU8nS2ygC
Also:
"The theory of natural selection may be so formulated that it is far from tautological. In this case it is not only testable, but it turns out to be NOT STRICTLY UNIVERSALLY TRUE. There seem to be exceptions, as with so many biological theories; and considering the random character o f the variations on which natural selection operates, the occurrence of exceptions is not surprising. Thus not all phenomena of evolution are explained by natural selection alone. Yet in every particular case it is a challenging research program to show how far natural selection can possibly be held responsible for the evolution of a particular organ or behavioral program."
Sources:
[1] Popper, Karl (1976). Unended Quest. La Salle: Open Court. ISBN 0875483437.
[2] Autobiography, Karl Popper. "I consider darwinism as metaphysics and as a research program. It is metaphysics because it is NOT TESTABLE."
Google Books: /books?id=NyCEnehPMd8C&lpg=PP1&dq=unended ques
[3] Miller, David (1985). Popper selections. pp. 239-246. ISBN 978-0691020310.
[4] Evolutionary epistemology, rationality, and the sociology of knowledge, by Karl Popper. pp. 143-147.
Google Books: /books?id=QnFiTrCzg5oC&lpg=PA143&ots=c7x_hTlgH
Happy debate!
Last edited:
