• 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

Craig4 said:
Were you going to address the two papers Abaddon found in posts 323 and 324?
Click to expand...

Sure, thanks.

abaddon said:
Sure.
http://www.sld.cu/galerias/pdf/sitios/revsalud/beyerstein_cience_vs_pseudoscience.pdf

Would you like to know more?
Click to expand...

abaddon said:
Want another? Wheeeeee!

https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2018-05598-002

That's two.

Want me to keep going?
Click to expand...


At LAST we got some candidates, it has only taking you 400 messages! Yes! Thanks abaddon. :D

Regarding the second one, I'm afraid it's just an Abstract that says "I define pseudoscience as that which is not scientific, such as this and that." In other words, worthless. But if you can link us to the full PDF, or to the precise Demarcation Criterion that they use to tell science from pseudosciences, I'll happily review it.

Regarding the first one, I'm afraid that, from pages 5 to 23 it's just a collection of assertions without any formal justification. I.e.: Pseudoscience is this and that because I say so.

From pages 34 onwards it's just plain "Pathological Skepticism". I've stopped reading anymore.

devhdb said:
I call their behavior
"Pathological Skepticism", a term I base upon skeptics' assertion that
various unacceptable ideas are "Pathological Science." Below is a list
of the symptoms of pathological skepticism I have encountered, and
examples of the irrational reasoning they tend to produce.

For full list see: http://amasci.com/pathsk2.txt

Main page: CLOSEMINDED SCIENCE: Examining the negative aspects of the social dynamics of science.
Click to expand...



Upon further scrutiny, I'm afraid I've failed to spot what is/are the necessary and sufficient condition(s) so that an assertion can be considered pseudoscientific vs. a scientific one.

But probably you'll have found it/them and will save us all the time. Please tell us what page(s) it's at. Or try with another paper(s).

Is that all you all got?

Try harder.

:rolleyes:
 
devhdb said:
Yeah, let's spend it on Homeopathy investigations, which are least are subject to falseability,
Click to expand...
Enough money (probably is millions by now, though I suspect very little came from the homeopaths who were making the claims and hence on whom the burden of proof lay) has already been spent investigating homeopathy and establishing beyond reasonable doubt that it doesn't work. Spending any more would be a waste, akin to spending money investigating whether the earth is flat.

and/or let's explore if matter and Consciousness are one and the same, right?
Click to expand...

How? Sounds like gibberish to me, but design an experiment which could plausibly investigate it and you probably would get funding for it.
 
How would you go about exploring "if matter and Consciousness are one and the same", and how would that solve either the mind body problem or the hard problem of consciousness?

Design your study/experiment/investigation and submit your request for funding.
 
devhdb said:
Yes, I want to comment, thanks.

Let's take the multiverse hypothesis, where there are a hypothetical group of multiple universes.

Together, these universes comprise everything that exists: the entirety of space, time, matter, energy, information, and the physical laws and constants that describe them and the different universes within the multiverse are called "parallel universes", "other universes", or "alternate universes".

Millions of dollars are granted by governments worldwide to fund hypothesis such as the multiverse.

Is that hypothesis falsifiable? If so, how?

According to Hansson & Boudry, is the multiverse hypothesis...

...Science or Pseudoscience?

[qimg]https://media1.tenor.com/images/89f8c1e3d2fa4d0081e6af67ff5a78d4/tenor.gif[/qimg]

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

No sorry. Your challenge was to provide at least one paper that provided a distinction between science and pseudo science. Now you have several.

You do not get to move those goalposts. Address the actual papers presented and admit you are wrong about that claim.

Have you the courage to do so, or are you merely going to dishonestly move the goalposts?
 
devhdb said:
Sure, thanks.



At LAST we got some candidates, it has only taking you 400 messages! Yes! Thanks abaddon. :D
Click to expand...
Nope. You are browned off that I could trivially find what you could not. It might be that you really are a computer illiterate, but that is OK. That can be sorted with a little education. Not really a problem, is it?

devhdb said:
Regarding the second one, I'm afraid it's just an Abstract that says "I define pseudoscience as that which is not scientific, such as this and that." In other words, worthless. But if you can link us to the full PDF, or to the precise Demarcation Criterion that they use to tell science from pseudosciences, I'll happily review it.
Click to expand...
Are you really stating that you cannot give enough of a **** about your own claim to invest a few paltry dollars in research about that claim?

Why should any of us care about a claim you don't care about?

And besides, why should I break the law on your behalf? Go break laws all on your lonesome without my participation.

devhdb said:
Regarding the first one, I'm afraid that, from pages 5 to 23 it's just a collection of assertions without any formal justification. I.e.: Pseudoscience is this and that because I say so.
Click to expand...
I can do nothing about your lack of reading comprehension. That is exclusively your problem.

devhdb said:
From pages 34 onwards it's just plain "Pathological Skepticism". I've stopped reading anymore.
Click to expand...
Of course. You don't really like anything which challenges your ideas. That isn't science, it is crackpottery and a recipe for intellectual disaster.


devhdb said:
Upon further scrutiny, I'm afraid I've failed to spot what is/are the necessary and sufficient condition(s) so that an assertion can be considered pseudoscientific vs. a scientific one.
Click to expand...
Lack of reading comprehension it is.

devhdb said:
But probably you'll have found it/them and will save us all the time. Please tell us what page(s) it's at. Or try with another paper(s).
Click to expand...
I can give you dozens, but I won't bother. I know in advance you will not read them. You are too invested in the crank belief of homeopathy to be aware that there is a box.

devhdb said:
Is that all you all got?

Try harder.
Click to expand...

By no means. I could swamp you with papers. But why? You complain that what I have provided is "pay per view", but if you were an actual academic, you would have no problem accessing those papers. Why can you not do so?
 
devhdb said:
The fact that it sounds like gibberish to you is irrelevant to the fact that nobody has solved the mind-body problem or the Hard Problem of Consciousness yet.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind-body_problem
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness

ha.
Click to expand...

Provide any example of a consciousness absent a physical brain.

You cannot.

Fair warning. I am speaking as one who had the whole OOBE/NDE experience and I know for a fact that it is a load of old bollox.
 
abaddon said:
I can give you dozens, but I won't bother. I know in advance you will not read them.
Click to expand...

I have read the abstract. I actually have got the book where it's been published. So what. Have ^YOU read what you blindly copypasta?

"Instead social scientists examine large constellations of variables, looking for trends between a given set of individual, social, or cultural factors and acceptance of scientific or nonscientific beliefs. Results from these research endeavors have yet to find the silver bullet that answers the question of why some people accept a scientific conclusion while others reject it in favor of a pseudoscientific or anti-scientific claim. As the scientific culture values parsimony, perhaps it should come as no surprise that we, as scientists, are arguing there is no need to look for such an answer, and instead accept the (perhaps uncomfortable) conclusion that all beliefs are subject to the same influences. "
Click to expand...

Do ^YOU realize that what you have pasted is an essay regarding cognitive BELIEFS on "pseudosciences" and NOT a paper on the epistemological demarcation between science and pseudoscience, which is what I have asked for in the title of this immensely revealing thread?

Try harder2
:scared:


:blush:
 
devhdb said:
Yeah, let's spend it on Homeopathy investigations, which are least are subject to falseability,
Click to expand...

Done and dusted. How much more do you spend after 100 years of studies give you the same result? It has been reputedly falsified. That covers two of the main aspects of scientific endeavor.

In fact, homeopathy is a good picture of when science works, but faith works harder.

and/or let's explore if matter and Consciousness are one and the same, right?

;)
Click to expand...

I'm willing to bet that more money is being spent on the study of the "nature of consciousness" right now than I am comfortable with.

Have you searched publications for that phrase and other similar phrases covering the last ten years? What sort of results did you find?
 
Dr. Keith said:
I'm willing to bet that more money is being spent on the study of the "nature of consciousness" right now than I am comfortable with.

Have you searched publications for that phrase and other similar phrases covering the last ten years? What sort of results did you find?
Click to expand...

This search throws 25.000+ papers on it. Thankfully.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=es&as_sdt=0,5&q="nature+of+consciousness"

Yet it's not enough, for the Hard problem of Consciousness remains unsolved.

...and maybe it never? will be... :(
 
More old ground. As I said the last time we had a HPC discussion, I have yet to see a rigorous formulation of the hard problem of consciousness.

The first thing to do when you want to solve a problem is to set out as clearly and rigorously as possible what the problem is.

It can't just be a "we don't know" thing because there are lots of things we don't know.

Personally I think that if someone took the time to formulate it rigorously then we might well find it is an insoluble problem.

But I am not sure how that is supposed to turn little bottles of water into medicine.
 
Last edited:
Robin said:
More old ground. As I said the last time we had a HPC discussion, I have yet to see a rigorous formulation of the hard problem of consciousness.

The first thing to do when you want to solve a problem is to set out as clearly and rigorously as possible what the problem is.

It can't just be a "we don't know" thing because there are lots of things we don't know.

Personally I think that if someone took the time to formulate it rigorously then we might well find it is an insoluble problem.

But I am not sure how that is supposed to turn little bottles of water into medicine.
Click to expand...

It looks like the classic “going nuclear” tactic, a radical scepticism where we are given reason to doubt even our firmest beliefs. This new epistemological wasteland provides the base for an unfettered ontology where dragons, ghosts and homeopaths roam majestically unopposed.

Stephen Law’s description of his idea.
http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com/2011/09/going-nuclear.html?m=1
 
Last edited:
devhdb said:
Good question. [at last]

My answer:

I. DO. NOT. KNOW.

and you?
Click to expand...
Since I have no evidence that they exist, I have no reason to believe I've met one, so of course I don't know. Just as I don't know if I've met cleverly disguised space crocodilians.

You make the argument for P-zombies as if they were something other than a thought exercise.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom