What makes science science?

[BurtWorm]

What makes pseudoscience pseudoscience?

[htuttle]

1. Methodology

Answer to both questions.

[BurtWorm]

2. Could you be more specific?

I'm hoping this discussion will help those who use this forum to understand what is a good science thread and what is a pseudoscience thread.

[wtmusic]

5. Scientific method

# 1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
# 2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
# 3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
# 4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
# 5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.


http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node6.html

[htuttle]

11. I think reply #3 states it about as well as I could

Repeatable experiments, design of the experiments to utilize control cases, interpreting the results of an experiment in the context it was designed in, ie., what is called the 'scientific method'.

It shouldn't have anything to do with WHAT is studied -- but rather HOW it is studied. You can (and some do) attempt to study parapsychology or bigfoot and UFO sightings with science, and still do good science. You probably won't find many thrilling answers that way, but they will probably be more correct answers, assuming you did good science.

[Field Of Dreams]

3. Empiricism, research design, hypothesis testing, and

repeatable/verifiable experiments makes science

eom

[oscar111]

7. sense data fed into good logic

repeatability desirable, not necessary ... astronomy is a science with no repeats needed.

eg, observe a new stellar phenomenon, and it is valid science with no other case on record yet.

The essence of science best seen in the first bare beginnings of it.

Oh, and no sacred ideas . Question all.

so science is basically anti-tradition. Destabilizing.
but many in science are not really good science thinkers. they do detail work and are very RW. Werner von Braun types.

[hecate77]

20. Actually, it is repeatable in the primary sense

What would not be acceptable would be a drawing of something one person saw and no one else did. For astronomical observations to be considered 'real' and 'scientific', they must be done in such a way that other people can also see the same thing, or, if it is a one time observation, such as Hubble shooting a deep field, then one must have trust in the independance and reliablity of the instrument used, and more than one person must have access to the data.

Could something still be faked? Yes, so anything really, really amazing would likely require more than one observer. Again, faking would probably not be possible on a large instrument with strict controls on who has access, when they have access, and where that access is not direct. For instance, someone who has time on Hubble does not actually use Hubble directly with no others being involved. This is not the case with many ground based telescopes.

So, saying that not all science needs to be repeatable is not really correct. Maybe repeatable is the wrong word here, and verifiable is more accurate. Repeatable in the astronomical sense can mean as little as does the instrument give the same reading time after time when looking at the same phenomenon.

In astronomy, it is very important to have as many people observe a phenomenon as possible using as many instruments as possible. One good example is the case surrounding gamma ray bursts. Yes, we had seen them, and everyone eventually accepted that the readings were real. The very first ones, just like the first readings from the Microwave background experiments earlier in the century, were subject to close examination to make sure they were not instrumental glitches. Once it was established that they probably were real, then it became important to catch the same events at different wavelengths and energies (if possible or relevant. In this way, even though these are singular events, they were repeatable and verifiable over time. No scientist would have staked his or her reputation on data from a single gamma ray burst, even though the data from that burst might have been accepted by all.

So, as long as a unique event can be observed by more than one person in an independant way, it can be considered repeatable. One event seen by one person would not likely be accepted. However, it would likely prompt others to look for a similar event in the future, if the original observer were one who was trusted.

[Bill McBlueState]

24. an example

Very well said. It's true that in an observational science like astronomy, you can't exactly repeat an experiment like you can in, say, particle physics. But there are different ways to essentially meet the same standard.

To build on what you said, I'll offer a couple examples. In the study of star formation, you can't make twenty solar-mass stars, each with a different radius, and see how long each one takes to form planets. Instead, you observe a large number of solar-mass stars of differing ages and radii, and try to build a theory that adequately explains planet formation in every situation. It's all about assembling a statistically robust sample of objects.

Another example is the attempt to detect a magnetic monopole. In this case, there was a single reported detection in 1982. It's never been repeated, so it has no credibility. So there's still the requirement of repeatability; astronomers just have different ways of meeting that requirement.

[hecate77]

60. Good points!

Yes, a single observation which cannot be confirmed or verified by anyone else is usually not accepted as a fact. I think, too, what was being originally confused are facts and observations. I think a fact is something that the community in general agrees to be true. That star has this spectra. Fact. That gamma ray burst had these characteristics. Fact. I observed a magnetic monopole. Conjecture.

The person may or may not have observed something which could have been verified by others and been accepted as a fact, but with only their claim or their interpretation of what it meant, it cannot be accepted into the body of knowledge, just like a single observation of a potential comet or asteroid is accepted. More than one person has to see it, or at least it has to be seen on more than one plate or image.

A similar major problem exists with the claims of Pons and Fleishman concerning cold fusion. Their experiment alone is not sufficient proof. If other, completely independant experimenters cannot duplicate the experiment, it must remain in the realm of the unproven. That does not mean there was no cold fusion. It only means it was not proven. This is another good example of a single observation which does not, by itself, meet the criteria to be accepted by the general scientific community.

My favorite article in the Journal of Irreproducible Results is one on 'Single Event Statistics', wherein the author derives a complete cosmology from one observation. You know, make a step function, spread it and then do statistics on it etc. until you come up with something that looks like science.

[Angry Girl]

29. *hiiiisssss* You empiricists are all the same! :-)

What about theory? Where would we be without theory, huh?

[katusha]

4. the scientific method

that is what seperates science from pseudoscience.
---------------------
Scientific methods or processes are considered fundamental to the scientific investigation and acquisition of new knowledge based upon physical evidence. Scientists use observations, hypotheses and deductions to propose explanations for natural phenomena in the form of theories. Predictions from these theories are tested by experiment. Any theory which is cogent enough to make predictions can then be tested reproducibly in this way. The method is commonly taken as the underlying logic of scientific practice. A scientific method is essentially an extremely cautious means of building a supportable, evidence-based understanding of our natural world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
---------------------

[tubbacheez]

8. GMTA! :) n/t

[tubbacheez]

6. Um... the scientific method?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method





Most people are comfortable with the forming of a hypothesis and the search for evidence to support it.

What trips many people up is when they forget to search for evidence that would dismiss the hypothesis.

Real science is an unbiased search for truth. Just because a scientist is allowed to use personal ideas in forming a hypothesis doesn't mean she simply goes around trying to prove her beliefs are true.

[Orrex]

9. htuttle pegged it, but here's a little more

Science is a system of processes by which we seek to understand the natural universe. Many forms of pseudoscience, in contrast, seek to obscure the natural universe behind a cloak of unknowable, impenetrable mysticism.

Science depends on reproduceable experiment and observation and upon the testing of predictions. Pseudoscience depends generally upon anecdotal testimony and upon experiments that can't reasonably be reproduced. Pseudoscience makes few if any testable predictions (and if such predictions are made, they're usually made in a hopelessly general and non-verifiable way). And even if the predictions of pseudoscience are shown to be false, then advocates of pseudoscience spin all kinds of post hoc excuses to justify them.

Science makes no claims about the supernatural, other than to point out that no conclusive evidence exists to demonstrate the existence of supernatural beings or phenomena. Pseudoscience often embraces the supernatural (in the form of Reiki "energy" or nonsensical "precognitive" ramblings, for example).

Science is falsifiable; that is, every scientific theory can, in principle, be shown to be flawed, and this is correctly recognized as a strength of science. Pseudoscience is almost invariably non-falsifiable; that is, the claims of pseudoscience are worded in such a way that they can't be shown to be flawed, even in principle (for example "God answers every prayer, and sometimes the answer is no") Adherents foolishly regard this as a strength of pseudoscience.

Science is fecund, in that one well-demonstrated theory often leads to verifiable breakthroughs in other theories. Pseudoscience is not fecund, which is to say that few if any pseudoscientific theories have been well-demonstrated and have therefore produced no verifiable breakthroughs in other theories.

There are numerous other examples...

[beam me up scottie]

16. " Pseudoscience makes few if any

estable predictions (and if such predictions are made, they're usually made in a hopelessly general and non-verifiable way). And even if the predictions of pseudoscience are shown to be false, then advocates of pseudoscience spin all kinds of post hoc excuses to justify them."

Excellent definition of pseudo-science.
The standard responses of "You can't disprove it" and "You don't know everything, therefore this is possible" are also give-aways.

[BurtWorm]

10. What about supernatural or mythological assumptions?

To me it's a dead giveaway that something is pseudoscience if one of its "conclusions" is "God" or a monster did it.

[papau]

15. nope - no pre-judging allowed - htuttle in post 11 is worth a reread!

Of course, that may well be just my opinion - and then again it may - indeed is - the definition.

[BurtWorm]

30. But there are criteria for judging whether something is scientific or not.

A person can scientifically study the effect of prayer on a person's physical health, for example. But you can prejudge whether the study is scientific or pseudoscientific by the inclusion or exclusion of supernatural hypotheses or conclusions. A scientific study does not set out to prove or disprove that a supernatural agent operates during prayer. If prayer is found to be beneficial, for example, a scientist can legitimately look for natural mechanisms that make it beneficial--or to disprove that there is a cause and effect relationship between prayer and good health. But to conclude that it's beneficial because a supernatural agent responds is not scientific.

I'll go out on a limb and say that I don't think science has anything to say about supernature. Science is strictly about nature. Is that too bold a claim?

[SteppingRazor]

41. Not at all is that too bold a claim.

It's the difference between science and philosophy. Science theorizes and tests the natural world. Philosophy answers the large questions that science is -- as yet -- unable to answer.

Heck, even some philosophers have trouble with the supernatural. Immanuel Kant came up with his whole theory of ethics because he couldn't bear the idea of basing morals on somethiing we can never truly know anything about in this lifetime (i.e. God)

[papau]

66. true as to "proving" anything "supernatural" - but inclusion of a non

standard hypotheses does not make it non-scientific.

Can we look back a few months and all those experiments to detect the effect of "banes", we note that they found no measurable effects from Banes.

Our "String "Revolution, with D=10, or supergravity or supermembranes with D=11 all impossible to quantize, had physic types chasing "Banes" and our supersymmetric "Standard Model."

Some say that science and religion grow ever closer!

In any case science is when you believe the universe has no center and no edge: the origin occurred throughout space at the same time, and is still being created - Space is created as the universe expands, so there is never anything outside of the universe.

Religion is perhaps noting the contradiction between no time before the creation of the Big Bang and the creation of the space time continuum, and the need to have matter compressed into the size of a ping-pong ball just show up.

Why not work from the idea of adding time to the mix so as to start things, rather than having a big bang (beware - this not current "science"). I am not saying one should - but why not?

now does all this make the bane experiments bad science?

QM says cause and effect relationships may be impossible to detect, because of action at a distance in the QM world.

I'll go out on a limb and say that science is a process - and that conclusions are not part of the defining of a good science process.

Heck even if I conclude something may be supernatural, I may have made no conclusions about how nature works per "science" - and yet I may have done some good science along the way.

With cause and effect now gone, it is really hard to define "science", so we say "cause and effect" is only a problem in the QM world.

Again, Some say that science and religion grow ever closer!

Hard to say that is not true! At least in some areas.

Again it is the process, not the conclusions, that define science.

But debunking conclusions is fun and open to all - and one can "debunk" by saying supernatural does not count as a scientific conclusion. And I do not believe those of faith would disagree.

But those without faith are then left with no explanation - no "scientific explanation" - of some very interesting questions.

[BurtWorm]

71. Well, many with faith are similarly deprived of natural explanations

for some very interesting questions that they believe can only be answered by appealing to Supernature. I think, for example, of intelligent design proponents who are satisfied to ascribe to the handiwork of a Designer certain organs that they deem "irreducibly complex," but which biologists can show to be reducible to predecessor components after all.

The point is, science progresses as it shows the workings of nature. It leaves questions of Supernature to the theologians and metaphysicians.

[papau]

75. I wish I understood intelligent design but I do not need logical proof of

God - indeed it seems irrelevant. It certainly does not advance science - and is not needed for faith.

It is rather like saying science conclusions may be wrong - so duh! - like what else is new?

We appear to agree on a great deal!

peace

:-)

[BurtWorm]

79. I think we do.

My understanding of ID is that it puts the cart (the conclusion) in front of the horse (the evidence). Its main job, it seems to me, is to challenge evolution, but it doesn't offer a viable scientific theory as an alternative. It approaches the question posing a false dichotomy--either all life evolved or it was designed--and then seeks to show why it can't be evolution so it must be designed.

[TahitiNut]

12. Shorter answer: the assumption of 'knowability'

The scientific method is founded on a postulate: that the behavior of Nature (the universe) and all within it is knowable and consistent with rules that human beings are able to understand.

The very meaning of 'supernatural' is anything outside of that which is natural and knowable.

It's not surprising that those having the least ability to 'know' and 'learn' would cling to the notion that they're attuned to the 'unknowable'.

[beam me up scottie]

14. "The very meaning of 'supernatural'

is anything outside of that which is natural and knowable."

Excellent point.

[papau]

17. smile = :-) some other definitions are:

By definition supernatural phenomena violate the natural laws and your "outside of that which is natural and knowable" fits and is the definition used in writing scary fiction

but there are other "supernatural" definitions with perhaps subtle differences.

a phenomenon that is by definition outside of the realm of science,

not existing in nature or subject to explanation according to natural laws; not physical or material; "supernatural forces and occurrences and beings"

Beyond or transcending the natural laws of the physical cosmos.

Not of natural forces, but rather of an existence attributable to ?

conscious magical, religious or unknown forces that cannot ordinarily be perceived except through their effects.

adj. Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.

[htuttle]

19. There isn't any phenomena 'outside the realm' of science

A phenomena might suggest conclusions outside the realm of what has been 'proven' by known science, but there isn't anything that is outside the realm of what can be studied by science.

Even the mad ravings of lunatics can be studied by science -- the fields of psychiatry and psychology do that all the time.

[Maple]

13. 'Oh, and no sacred ideas . Question all.'

Thank you oscar111. My point exactly.

[Caution]

18. yes. question all. but do it using the scientific method

Not willy-nilly. Questions of the "gotcha" sort are not useful and are very much found in the realm of pseudoscience *particularly* if the question is asked out of either ignorance of the experiments, data and methodology or due to stubborn refusal to accept tested and verified results.

[Maple]

21. Well actually,

the 'stubborn refusal to accept tested and verified results' is the only thing that's ever moved us forward, and out of mental ruts.

[Caution]

22. no, refusal to accept tested and verified results

when presented with new found data is what has moved us forward. Stubborn refusal in the face of evidence or lack thereof has always pushed us backwards.

[Maple]

23. LOL well you wouldn't have 'new found data'

if everyone had just accepted the original results as final.

Nothing involved in 'questioning' has EVER pushed us backwards.

[Caution]

26. Nothing involved in questioning has ever pushed us backwards?

I would posit that this very much depends on the questioner. When Richard Hoagland questions NASA (I'm being specific to this particular crackpot, questioning NASA is good and healthy in general) he is pushing us backwards, when ID proponents question evolution they are pushing us backwards. When a question is asked for the clear and sole purpose of undermining scientific research just because it doesn't support a current belief system whether that belief system is based on judeo-christian-islamic theology, astrology, alien obsession or anything else, when something is shown to operate contrary to the tenets of this belief system, it is pushing us backwards.

Mankind's desire to find the fundamental nature of the universe through asking questions is a truism, but through science we strive to ask appropriate and pertinent questions. We do this through the scientific method. If only more people who wasted their time on the various crackpot theorists out there who are only looking to sell their books (generally through fear of the unknown, fear of the apocalypse or fear of some cabal) would spend their times actually learning how science actually works we would see science advanced with less resistance.

[Maple]

27. No. Nothing. Ever.

We wouldn't have been stuck with the dogma of Ptolemy and Aristotle for so long if people had asked questions about 'sacred cows'.

ALWAYS question.

[Caution]

28. Did you read my last post?

anti-rationalists insist on this line of attack into the reality based community because it allows them to continue to push idiotic bunk into the popular culture thus allowing them to sell the same ideas over and over again.

How many times is Gellar going to attempt to convince people that his cheap parlor tricks are harnessing the "energy of the mind"? How many times do I have to hear Richard Hoagland or any of the other denizens of Coast to Coast use the argument "oh a skeptic says we should question X but when I question Y they say I'm a crackpot?" It's the same thing over and over again and it's an argument that simply doesn't wash.

If someone tells me that touching a hot stove will burn me and that they have tested this hundreds of times following the scientific method with complete repeatability, I'm going to do one of three things.

1.) I'm going to believe the scientific community because I am familiar with the methodology.

2.) I'm going to test it myself, verify the results and resolve that after I nurse my fingers back to health to never be so damned stupid again.

or

3.) I'm going to keep questioning and keep burning my hands until they are charred bloody stumps.

[Maple]

32. Of course I did

I just didn't agree with it.

And I'm not the least concerned with Geller or Hoagland or anyone else, no matter how bizarre you find them.

Questions are always good.

Mark Twain said something interesting about hot stoves:

"We should be careful to get out of an experience only the wisdom that is in it - and stop there; lest we be like the cat that sits down on a hot stove lid. She will never sit on a hot stove lid again - and that is well; but also she will never sit down on a cold one anymore." -Mark Twain.

[Caution]

34. What's irritating about this discussion is that I agree with you

in principle but I'm having trouble making the point that Science <> Asking questions. Not entirely. Science requires the methodology to be employed otherwise mere questioning of the universe around us and various aspects of it can masquerade as true science thus leading to all kinds of problems (such as the continued and worsening global warming situation). When scientific consensus is achieved then only a fundamental shift in our understanding of the subject matter can alter any given theory. Certainly this happens on a somewhat regular basis, but not nearly as frequently as the non-reality based community would like us to believe (so that we keep buying their crap).

My overall point is that while yes questioning anything and everything is important, ignoring the data at hand when doing it is perilous.

[Maple]

36. LOL well at least you're honest

Oh absolutely prove things, I agree, and pay attention to the data at hand, but questions can't hurt us.

If we can't question something, we're dead as a species.

Scientists cooked their own goose on 'global warming'...it's a misnomer. They had announced 'global cooling' in the 70s and then reversed themselves...which naturally leads to questions.

Had they said 'climate change' from the beginning, they wouldn't have had all these problems. We can SEE climate change.

Same thing with 'Genetically modified organisms'. It's not nearly as catchy as 'Frankenfood' so guess which one people remember and go by?

And maybe non-manned robotic space flight is safer and more scientific than having people on board...but then nobody pays attention to it...and it's those people that pay the bills, so before you know it you'll have some questions that you REALLY don't want. As in 'why are my tax dollars being spent on this waste of time?'

Scientists sometimes get so caught up in the process, and in literalism that they do themselves in.

Then they appear as a priesthood hoarding knowledge, and telling people which questions are legitimate, and which are not.

Turns people right off science, and that you do NOT want to do.

[Caution]

42. quibble

Global warming is not a misnomer, "climate change" is a term cooked up by an ad agency working for the republican party (seriously!) because "global warming" became a term that the public became aware of and was frightened of. "climate change" was tested using polling techniques as a term that people were less frightened of and over time it became the accepted term (as in Frankenfood for example). Global warming is just that, an overall warming trend as opposed to "gee it's so much hotter this winter than in the past!"

non-manned robotic space flight has the *potential* to be safer (more scientific? how and in what way? do you mean more able to perform scienctific experiments in a dangerous environment?) but then you get into budgetary questions again in terms of how to create the technology to make this viable. We can't yet create a decent robot that operates here on earth from ten feet away never mind in space. right now people are a heckuva lot cheaper. As for asking questions about tax dollars being spent on a waste of time. Well that's something that I would never agree with and will never understand. As a liberal i want my government to spend my tax dollars on making my life better. one of the things that makes my life better is greater understanding.

scientists most definitely do not do themselves in on this basis. the superstitions of outmoded belief systems refuse to allow a decent science curriculum to be taught in our schools which would then be able to show the benefits that the scientific community can bring to our lives. this is what "does in" science.

Science never tells people which questions are legitimate and which are not, science points out that the evidence for something makes it so or makes it not so. People get turned off because they want to believe that aliens created crop circles for whatever completely asinine reason and then get upset when a scientist shows them exactly how it can be done by a 14 year old with stuff they found in the barn.

[Maple]

47. Quibble away

See...here's the problem. It doesn't matter which is 'more accurate' scientifically. What matters is the meaning of the phrase to the general public.

'Global warming' sounds good to people living in cold places.

And a cold spell means people scoff at the warming idea.

'Climate change', however the phrase came about, was much more useful.

Scientists aren't nearly as practical as they need to be. And while they were quibbling over wording...people were ignoring the problem itself.

People aren't IN science classes anymore...the number of students taking it up has been dropping for years. So first of all you have to get actual 'bums in seats' ....and then for gawds sake don't turn them off by laying restrictions on everything. Encourage questioning.

To toss in another quotation, I believe it was Shaw who said 'why is it that in school, only the teachers get to ask questions?'

I made crop circles when I was a kid, so I know the story...however you can't 'guarantee' that all the crop circles in the world, some very elaborate and quickly done, are made the same way....so let people question. What does it hurt?

It may even get them interested in other things...more scientific things in your view.

As to robotics...you are way behind on that subject, so we'll leave that till another time.

[Caution]

69. We'll agree to disagree

Though I will make one request. That you don't make assumptions about what I am behind on. I think my creation of a fully autonomous underwater vehicle used in current scientific applications might change your mind on what I do or don't know about the current state of robotics, but we'll leave that until another time shall we?

[Maple]

70. Kay...no prob

However you might check into robotics in other countries...say Japan and Canada.

The US is not the field leader I'm afraid.

But, as you say, another time. :D

[beam me up scottie]

25. Randi's Science & Pseudoscience: the Differences

SCIENCE & PSEUDOSCIENCE: THE DIFFERENCES.

I'm often asked for my personal definition of "science," and I usually limit it to this: Science is an organized, disciplined, unbiased search for knowledge of the world around us. Given the opportunity, I hasten to add to this my observations that science does not discover "facts," but rather it finds statements (theories, formulae, descriptions) as a result of having examined the real world, statements that describe what may be expected to be found under stated conditions. And, just as importantly, science is always prepared to adjust, reverse, abandon, and/or add/subtract to/from its statements, in order to more closely approach "the truth." Obviously, we can always go on from there to define "truth," which I regard as an unreachable goal (truth, not the definition) — though in spite of Zeno's Paradox, we do eventually and essentially get there. But let's not examine that can of worms….

Science and pseudoscience are exact opposites, as are rationality and religion. Science, as a working method, employs basic principles such as objectivity and accuracy to establish a finding. It often also uses certain admitted assumptions about reality, assumptions that must eventually support themselves and be proven, or the resulting finding fails verification. Pseudoscience, however, uses invented modes of analysis which it pretends or professes meet the requirements of scientific method, but which in fact violate its essential attributes. Many obvious examples of pseudoscience are easy to identify, but the more subtle and therefore more insidious and convincing cases, require better definitions of the attributes involved.

http://www.randi.org/jr/031904science.html

[Celebration]

31. Here is how I would approach it

There are natural phenomena that are--

1.Knowable, and Currently Explainable by the the dominant scientific paradigm
2.Knowable, and Currently Unexplainable by the dominant scientific paradigm
3.Unknowable, and Currently and Forever Unexplainable by *any* scientific paradigm

Most people agree on number one. But if the current scientific paradigm cannot explain experimental results of something, or reports of natural phenomena that have not yet been put to an experimental test, does that mean that a proposed hypothesis which purports to explain it but is not currently accepted is pseudoscience, or is it useful scientific speculation?

The trick is distinguishing between #2 and #3. It would seem to me to be the goal of science to try to push the limits to the greatest extent, and try to move the unknowable into the knowable category. That rarely can be done without a lot of speculation and wrong guesses, missteps, and accusations of being pseudoscience. Therefore, to me, "pseudoscience" is necessary. And it often is a pile of crap. So what? That seems to me less of a problem that people becoming married to a particular scientific paradigm.

I rather like Thomas Kuhn’s views which distinguish between “normal science” (which is filling in the blanks in number one) and scientific revolutions, which require paradigm shifts. The normal science takes place all the time, the paradigm shifts in science are as stressful as any political revolution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Kuhn

And Max Planck--

"An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents.... What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out, and that the growing generation is familiarised with the idea from the beginning." Max Planck

[Maple]

33. ABSOLUTELY !

"It would seem to me to be the goal of science to try to push the limits to the greatest extent, and try to move the unknowable into the knowable category. That rarely can be done without a lot of speculation and wrong guesses, missteps, and accusations of being pseudoscience. Therefore, to me, "pseudoscience" is necessary. And it often is a pile of crap. So what? That seems to me less of a problem that people becoming married to a particular scientific paradigm."

[Caution]

35. The problem with pseudo-science is that

it takes away from the credibility and resources of real science and leaves the layperson with utterly incorrect beliefs. The US in particular is falling heavily into the problem of mistaking pseudoscience with actual science.

I would disagree with the assertion inherent in point #3. I disagree that there is anything that is truly unknowable or unexplainable. You discuss moving the unknown into the known, and yes this is an aspect of science. Accusations of pseudoscience typically don't occur in these situations when the scientific method is followed. There may be accusations of poor methodology or of missing out on a particular variable, but it is only when the method is absent that the charge of pseudoscience is properly leveled.

[Celebration]

46. BEFORE there are experiments

On moving something from number three to number two (which we agree is the goal, at least) we don't automatically first jump to a scientific experiment following a methodology. Sometimes it takes a long period of discussion, turning ideas over, stirring them up, keen observation and scratching the head. It is the asking of the "what if", and the "what if" can be mulled over publically without the world ending. If an idea has no merit, it can easily be discarded. I don't see how this takes resources away from "real" science. As for leaving the layperson with utterly incorrect beliefs, people believe what they want to believe in any case. Leave that to the marketplace of ideas. That's all we can do anyway. It would surely backfire to try to influence a layperson's belief system by advocating some sort of science police.

[BurtWorm]

37. Paradigm shifts are not ends in themselves.

They're means to the end of all science. A lot of pseudoscientists seem to make that mistake, to think that because it requires a supposed shift in paradigm to believe something, it must necessarily be good.

[Maple]

38. No they're not, I agree

but they're not always bad either, and they're oftimes necessary.

[BurtWorm]

39. Of course they're not always bad and are oftimes necessary.

But the main point is, they're not ends in themselves. They occur when a tipping point is reached.

[Maple]

40. Agreed

that they are not an end in themselves...but if we left it to the strict interpretationists, we'd never reach a 'tipping point' until we were actually long past it, facing a brick wall, and forced to reverse course.

Hence the need for constant questions. And the time to ask them is before, and when, you reach a fork in the road...not after you've gone miles down the wrong turn.

[SteppingRazor]

44. Agree completely...

But there is also a time to stop asking questions. Yes, there are four forces in the universe -- gravity, electromagnetic and strong and weak nuclear. There is no need to question this, questioning this is futile as it has been proven over and over and over and over again in controlled experiments. Where questioning the science comes in is at the forefront of theory, where theoretical physicists try to unite gravitational and quantum theory with such new Grand Unified Theories as string theory. I'd say these should be questioned and picked apart time and time again.
What's foolish is trying to pick apart gravity or the fact that the Earth is round. I look at Maple's philosophy on questioning -- always question -- and I only agree depending on the subject and the timeline. I think questioning science is more like a bell curve -- there reaches a point at which questioning proven scientific advances serves only to advance other ideas that have fallen out of favor in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary -- or would you rather there still be a public debate about, say, phrenology?

[Maple]

49. Well phrenology

as in 'studying the bumps on yer head' is discredited.

Lighting up areas of the brain inside the head when you think or do various things...is the latest hot pursuit. What area of the brain does what thing?

Perhaps the right general direction, just not the technology to get past a certain level.

The questions weren't wrong...they just didn't have the means to 'go any deeper.

[SteppingRazor]

50. But my point is?

Should we still be talking about phrenology?
And as you say, it's been discredited. I think any half-bright, reasonably sane person would agree with you. I also think that, 1000 years from now, hucksters will be marketing phrenology as a proven science known as fact by "the ancients."

Anyway, I'm just pointing out that some scientific theory is discredited. Conversely, other scientific theory becomes accepted fact. To promote the former or question the latter is just so much claptrap. And, imnsho, anyone who tries either one is probably selling you something.

[Celebration]

51. correct me if I am wrong

But wasn't Newtonian physics accepted fact?

[Maple]

52. Yes, t'was

until it became discredited as well. :D

Everything I was taught in elementary school as absolute gospel, telegram from Mount Olympus, graven on stone by God, total fact...has all been proven wrong.

Humans did not think the world was flat until Columbus.

And actually, Columbus was so late in 'discovering' America, he was practically a tourist.

Gutenberg did not invent the first printing press.

The western 'enlightenment' did not bring 'science' to the world for the first time.

The British Empire did not raise people out of savagery to civilization.

And so on...

I'd have the last laugh on all my teachers, if any of them were still alive...because I drove them nuts. :7

The thing is...we don't know very much at all. 'Science' is a hodge podge at best, and we are a long way from any absolute 'truth.'

We can only go on what we now know...or think we know...but it's waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too early to be shutting any doors.

[htuttle]

56. Newtonian physics hasn't been discredited

It just had the scope of it's relevance limited. It's valid within a defined scope of size, speed, etc.... Above or below that, it doesn't apply (or rather, it stops making useful predictions).

That is true of almost all of our scientific theories. They are valid within a defined or implied scope of relevance. Outside that scope -- there's no guarantees any of it still holds up (though it's probably safe to assume they do until they don't).

Gravitational theories don't really apply (or aren't useful) at the subatomic level, and electromagnetic charges seem to have little effect on the orbits of planets.

You could try to use Einstein's theories to predict the behavior of a billiard ball on a pool table, but it's much easier to use Newtonian physics to do so unless the billiard ball is traveling near the speed of light.

[Maple]

59. A shovel and a bucket

are still useful even though we have giant earth movers.

We just don't confuse the shovel and the bucket with the 'ultimate' and only answer.

[greyl]

111. Newtonian Physics Was Discredited?

What's your support for that statement?

[SteppingRazor]

53. Yes. And it still is.

Newtonian mechanics specifically, and classical mechanics in general, were simply enhanced by special relativity, which just filled in the holes that couldn't be answered in Newton's time (objects moving at large velocity, near-light speed, etc.). But the basic precepts of Newtonian mechanics, as with the work of many of his contemporaries, is still relevant today. Newtonian mechanics was based on calculus (another of Newton's ridiculously brilliant discoveries), which paved the way for differential calculus and, eventually, classical mechanics.

So, I guess I don't understand your question. What's your point here? Newtonian mechanics is just as relevant today, though as a small subset of a larger threory, as it was in Newton's time.

[Maple]

57. And had we asked questions earlier?

Or been allowed to ask questions earlier, we could have been much further ahead by now.

We don't even know that Newton invented calculus..odds are that he 'reinvented' or rediscovered it.

This dousing of people with cold water over directions you don't agree with is as damaging as burning 'heretics' at the stake for questioning the establishment, and 'establishment truths'

[SteppingRazor]

61. Odds are that he "reinvented" it?

Says who? Before Newton, a bare handful of people did any work with infinitesimals. After him and Leibniz, we had calculus. This is the sort of questioning I have a problem with, when revisionist history robs people of their rightful heritage.

Yeah, Columbus didn't "discover" America. He wasn't even the first European there, and he didn't know where he was. But he did bring back the first meaningful reports -- in other words, the only ones to spark real interest in the New World. We can at least give him that.

In any case, Newtonian physics, as I stated is not "discredited." His ideas have only been expanded upon in subsequent years.

[Maple]

62. Contrary to popular belief

at least western popular belief, 'we' didn't invent a whole lot.

Calculus was apparently known in both ancient China and India.

Columbus thought he was in India

And stories about N/A with an inventory even, were known long before him.

His 'real interest' was sparked by previous voyages.

[SteppingRazor]

63. No, it wasn't.

Algebra was invented in the Middle East. Trigonometry was invented in China. Newton invented calculus.
Can you offer even a bare minimum of citation to back up your claims that calculus was invented somewhere in the East?
This is just a complete fabrication -- maybe not on your part, but if not, certainly on the part of the people you've read.
As far as early invention -- such as algebra -- certainly the Eastern world was ahead of the West. But during and after the Industrial Revolution, the West overtook the East in innovation -- Newton's calculus is one of the first examples of this -- and a very good one at that. I'm not denegrating the advances of Eastern civilizations, or the advances of civilizations that have come before us. But at least give credit where it is due.

Next we'll be saying that ancient China knew about relativity and that Max Planck was just copying someone else when he developed quantum mechanics.

[Maple]

64. Yeah it was

Dr Joseph George Gheverghese :The Crest of the Peacock: Non-European Roots of Mathematics ( 1st Hardback Edition, Tauris, 1991; 1st Paperback Edition, Penguin 1992, 2nd Edition, jointly by Penguin Books and Princeton University Press, 2000), Multicultural Mathematics: Teaching Mathematics from a Global Perspective (Oxford University Press, 1993)

He holds joint appointments at the Universities of Exeter and Manchester, UK, and University of Toronto, Canada.

And perhaps a reading of the popular Lost Discoveries by Teresi might dislodge some of that western presumption.

I have no idea if ancient China or India had an understanding of relativity...but it wouldn't surprise me. India was big on cosmology...and we've only scratched the surface of what they knew.

Knowledge doesn't belong to just one time or place, or people, it exists everywhere and always.

[Desertrose]

84. What a fantastic statement about knowledge, Maple...

"Knowledge doesn't belong to just one time or place, or people, it exists everywhere and always."

I couldn't agree more....

[Maple]

85. Thank you

:D

[greyl]

107. If by fantastic you mean good, I totally disagree.

That statement is literally AND figuratively meaningless.
It's Brittny Spears Philosophy. It fools some, but...

C'mon. "Knowledge exists everywhere and always"? That's a literally meaningless assertion, and a figuratively meaningless sentence. Explain the world we live in based on that "truism".

When you're done, show how skeptical, scientific DU members have tried to keep their knowledge a secret from the woo-woos even at the behest of the altreals to be exposed to their experience of existence and communicate fruitfully.

[Name removed]

125. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Caution]

129. Personal insults aren't welcome.

no need to insult anyone.

[Maple]

134. Then stop doing it

[Caution]

145. Where did i make a personal insult?

If you can find an example I will apologize for it. And I will be sincere.

[Maple]

147. Not necessary

I don't mind insults.

Just watching this whirlpool of illogic, vindictiveness, petty accusations and wild fantasy arguing over 'purity' is reward enough. LOL

[Caution]

149. not necessary? you just made an accusation towards me

I suggest you retract as I did nothing of the sort. I could care less what your personal opinion of how this discussion has degenerated may be, the original question was and is an important one, whether you think the discussion is funny or not lends nothing to the point. If you are going to continue attempting to derail the discussion please take your disruption elsewhere.

[Maple]

154. Mmm no actually I didn't

You just pretended to take it personally.

And there is no 'discussion' here to derail.

The entire topic is meant as a 'hit' on non-purists, and as such is irrelevant to any subject in the real world.

[Caution]

158. "Then stop doing it" in direct response to my asking you

to stay away from personal insults. That is an accusation no matter how you wish to slice the language. How you choose to interpret the original intent of the initial post is on you. If you don't like the topic of discussion why do you insist on continuing to involve yourself in it?

As for the relevance of this topic I would question why you think you have the right to speak to what is and what isn't relevant in the real world?

As for "pretending" to take it seriously. How dare you attempt to speak for what I do and don't take seriously? When someone accuses me of being uncivil and insulting when I have been neither I take it very seriously. I'll continue to await your apology for your accusation but I won't hold my breath. Your sheer audacity in attempting to speak for me is staggering.

[beam me up scottie]

127. Altreals.

I've never heard that one.
I like it.

[SteppingRazor]

121. Actually, it's George Gheverghese Joseph. I own a copy of the book.

Nowhere in it does Joseph claim Indians or Chinese invented calculus. What he does claim is that astronomers in southern India knew of many of the basic ideas of calculus -- infinitesimals, infinite series, differentials, etc. -- in the 13th-16th centuries. I'm not going to necessarily disagree with him there -- though I will point out what many other critics have. The finidings of astronomers at the Kerala School could be completed with other advanced mathematics, and the only people who claim Kerala-region Indians knew calculus are, coincidentally, Indians from the Kerala region, including both Joseph and the other leading proponent, Sharma. This might suggest an ethnocentricity on their part, not on the part of Westerners. In any case, nowhere does Joseph claim "Indians knew calculus 300 years before Newton."

If you'd read the book, you'd know that -- or maybe you did know that, and just hoped that I wouldn't. Simply throwing out the titles and authors of a couple of ethnomathematical textbooks is not going to make your case for a false assumption.

I completely agree with Joseph that the development of mathematics is a non-linear process -- various cultures developed and lost various processes at different times in their histories. But this is no reason to go back and start rewriting what we already know.

[Maple]

124. Yes, I said that

Why? Did you confuse the name?? I thought you owned a copy?

You asked for one citation and I gave you one...I also recommended another book.

And no, I didn't say that the phrase 'Indians knew calculus 300 years before Newton' occured in either book. I can speak for myself, so there's no need to put words in my mouth.

Your time would be better spent getting off that very tall western horse you're on, and reading more. You might learn something.

Assuming you can try for an open mind that is.

[SteppingRazor]

153. m'kay...

I humbly bow, move on to other threads, and allow you the smug satisfaction of having the final word.

[Maple]

155. LOL

[Celebration]

65. Newton was absolutely brilliant

There is no question about it. His work is still relevant today, in terms of solving engineering problems, etc. However your characterization as "simply enhanced" is glossing over the great controversy surrounding the change in paradigms (thus the Planck quotation). In terms of Newtonian physics correctly describing the nature of matter--uh, I don't think so. Newton's laws (settled theory) had to be questioned to move forward.

Anyway, someone put their really good lectures on line on these subjects. Take a look-- this is great, in terms of histories of different science theories, etc.

http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/21st_century_science/lectures/lec01.html
Then, just keep going forward through the lectures. Job well done.

[Maple]

54. Your point....

a thousand years from now, archaeologists could decide that TV sets were household gods, worshipped by every family, and no doubt the subjects of much ritual...and that bathtubs were sarcophagi kept handy for immediate use.

Not much we can do about that, beyond ensuring we're not so buried in time and debris and war that they have to speculate like that!

We can't go around worrying about what every single citizen thinks in their own head...but we can avoid dumping cold water buckets on them when they ask questions. Why discourage curiousity?

[SteppingRazor]

55. Why discourage critical thinking?

Why encourage incorrect assumptions?
It is never wrong to ask questions if one is completely ignorant of a subject.
It IS wrong to ask questions when one ought to know better.

[Maple]

58. I'm all for it

and part of critical thinking is asking questions...ESPECIALLY questions 'outside the box'

[BurtWorm]

120. Critical thinking implies making judgments.

If you can only ask questions, you're not thinking critically.

[Maple]

126. It involves both

and hopefully a LOT of questions before you go making any 'judgements'

Science today, and especially this 'discussion' of it seems to involve a lot of judgements...but no questions at all.

No wonder you're having problems.

[BurtWorm]

132. "No questions at all."

Really? Science today involves no questions at all? Aren't hypotheses and experiments questions?

Are you sure you're asking yourself questions about your own presuppositions? You sound pretty set on things to me.

[Maple]

136. No they're not

Hypotheses and experiments are ...er...hypotheses and experiments.

Questions are quite different.

Kinda tunnel vision in front of the ol' beaker there I would think.

Perhaps thats why we get so many bizarre studies...overtaken the next month by even more bizarre studies showing just the opposite.

Not exactly advancing civilization are we....

[BurtWorm]

140. You don't think scientists ask questions to develop a hypothesis?

Or to set up an experiment?

Here's are some questions a scientist once asked: how did different species originate? Did they spontaneously appear in an immutable form, or did they evolve from previous forms? If they evolved, what was (or were) the mechanism (or mechanisms) that shaped the species?

Those questions gave Darwin the basis to begin trying to solve them with experiments and hypotheses. But how could he formulate his experiments without questions? Maybe you can answer that one.

[Maple]

144. Only two

How much is the grant money?

What do I have to do to qualify?

Darwin was a latecomer...no doubt he got his 'questions' from people like this:

Giulio Cesare Vanini (c.1585-1619) - Also known as Lucilio Vanini and Pompeo Uciglio, the Italian Carmelite friar, and later teacher, aristocrat, and government official, imprisoned and killed for his pantheistic ideas. Author Lynne Schultz states “For Vanini, natural law was the divine. He rejected the idea of an immortal soul and was one of the first thinkers to view nature as (an entity) governed by natural laws. He also suggested that humans evolved from apes.” Vanini spurned Christianity as a fiction invented by rulers and priests to secure their power, a stance that forced him to flee from place to place to avoid Catholic authorities. Vanini wrote a book in 1616 entitled “De admirandis naturae reginae deaeque mortalium arcanis” (“of the marvelous secrets of the queen and goddess of the mortal ones, nature ") which held that divinity could not be rationally conceived outside of Nature. The book triggered his condemnation and savage execution in Toulouse at age 34, just 19 years after Bruno’s martyrdom. Persecutors removed his tongue before they strangled and burned him to death at the stake. Vanini displayed incredible courage to the end-- he pushed back a priest assisting the torturer and exclaimed “I’ll die as a philosopher!” Described as a charismatic man with verve, irreverence, and charm, who ‘collected patrons like flies around honey,’ many mourned his death.

[BurtWorm]

151. Darwin knew he was a latecomer, and he usually acknowledged his debts.

I don't know if he knew of Vanini, whom he doesn't mention in his history of the idea.

You're not implying that questions are proprietary, are you? Just because one person asks one, that doesn't mean someone else can't ask the same question, right?

The questions Darwin specifically asked were about fantail pigeons, coral reefs, intincts, the shape of honey-combs, the uses of tails, but they were all at the service of his larger questions about the origin of species. His grand theory was the question generator. It still generates questions for scientists and non-scientists today. Some questions it generates are actually honest, too.


I'm not going to take seriously your cynical take on professional scientists. I wonder, though, why, if you feel such transparent contempt for the way science is done these days, you feel drawn to this forum. Do you think of science as some kind of evil? Do you feel some kind of need to combat it?

[Maple]

156. Oh please

If I don't think either knowledge or science is proprietary, why would I think questions are?

Gosh yeah, that would be it....I think science is evil. Never mind my degree, or interests.

That would be why I've pushed to have it taken out of the realm of a 'purist priesthood', and into everybody's hands for observation and questions.

Pushing the pursuit of knowledge and truth is OBVIOUSLY because I 'hate science'. :rofl:

[BurtWorm]

160. You clearly have no respect for people who do science for a living.

Somehow you think you know better what science is than they are.

Interesting.

I wondered if you thought questions were propritary because you implied that someone else asked Darwin's questions first. If you weren't trying to make the claim that they weren't Darwin's questions, then I should just assume you were making a non sequitur, right?

[beam me up scottie]

150. #11

11. Two more words: Paradigm shift.

[beam me up scottie]

43. The Seven Warning Signs of Bogus Science

POINT OF VIEW
The Seven Warning Signs of Bogus Science
By ROBERT L. PARK

There is, alas, no scientific claim so preposterous that a scientist cannot be found to vouch for it

***

1. The discoverer pitches the claim directly to the media. The integrity of science rests on the willingness of scientists to expose new ideas and findings to the scrutiny of other scientists. Thus, scientists expect their colleagues to reveal new findings to them initially. An attempt to bypass peer review by taking a new result directly to the media, and thence to the public, suggests that the work is unlikely to stand up to close examination by other scientists.

***

2. The discoverer says that a powerful establishment is trying to suppress his or her work. The idea is that the establishment will presumably stop at nothing to suppress discoveries that might shift the balance of wealth and power in society. Often, the discoverer describes mainstream science as part of a larger conspiracy that includes industry and government. Claims that the oil companies are frustrating the invention of an automobile that runs on water, for instance, are a sure sign that the idea of such a car is baloney. In the case of cold fusion, Pons and Fleischmann blamed their cold reception on physicists who were protecting their own research in hot fusion.

***

3. The scientific effect involved is always at the very limit of detection. Alas, there is never a clear photograph of a flying saucer, or the Loch Ness monster. All scientific measurements must contend with some level of background noise or statistical fluctuation. But if the signal-to-noise ratio cannot be improved, even in principle, the effect is probably not real and the work is not science.

Thousands of published papers in para-psychology, for example, claim to report verified instances of telepathy, psychokinesis, or precognition. But those effects show up only in tortured analyses of statistics. The researchers can find no way to boost the signal, which suggests that it isn't really there.

***

http://chronicle.com/free/v49/i21/21b02001.htm

[SteppingRazor]

45. This is certainly the best answer yet in the science v. pseudo- debate

Thanks, Scottie!

[beam me up scottie]

48. You're welcome !

Pseudo-scientists haven't changed much over time, just their marketing methods.

[papau]

67. Nice post - I expect all at DU agree! :-) including myself. :-)

:-)

[Maple]

68. Modern version of a stake and matches

Not interested.

Question everything...including unacknowledged arrogance.

[papau]

72. ??? - Question everything...including unacknowledged arrogance

sounds fine - but "Modern version of a stake and matches" fits into the thread in what way?

in any case, large egos and arrogance are not in short supply, although humility is also something that can be questioned.

[Maple]

73. Arrogance in

sitting around deciding what is and what is not 'science' while the rest of the world forges ahead with it anyway is dumping cold water to no purpose other than silencing.

So verbal cold water is as effective as a stake and matches for stopping the quest for knowledge.

[BurtWorm]

77. With all due respect, I asked the question not to silence anyone

but to clarify what might belong in a science forum and what might make sense somewhere else--say a Borderland or paradigm shift "science" forum.

I stopped checking in here many moons ago when the "questioning" and "challenges to conventional science" threads outnumbered the actual science threads. I think that stuff is something other than what I expect to find here. It's like going to a Christian forum and finding nothing but posts from Scientologists. (No cult accusation intended.)

I would strongly recommend that any DU thinker, we'll say (as opposed to scientist), who believes the science world is not ready for their theories create a forum of their own for like thinkers. Does that seem unreasonable? Does it seem unreasonable to reserve a forum labeled science for science as it is practiced now? Is it fair to make people who come here looking for science news and discussions to have to wade through nonscientific subjects?

[Maple]

78. That's exactly why you asked

as you go on to repeat in your current post.

Goodness,no...we wouldn't want to inconvenience anyone by asking a question outside the box now would we?

I note that 'scientist' and 'thinker' have now been separated into 2 different categories...perhaps a Freudian slip on your part? :D

[BurtWorm]

80. I could have said idiot instead of "thinker"

but I didn't want to be impolite. ;)

(Just because someone's a thinker doesn't mean they think well, right?)

[Maple]

81. Well that's true

but then that would be western arrogance again wouldn't it?

'My way or the highway' kind of thing hmmm?

[BurtWorm]

82. More like apples or oranges.

You pay for an apple, you want an apple, don't you? Should you consider yourself arrogant and unimaginative if you're annoyed you got an orange instead?

[Maple]

83. Both are fruit

only one of them involves a lot of grafting. :7

[beam me up scottie]

89. The Barnum Effect ?

Barnum effect

The Barnum effect is the name given to a type of subjective validation in which a person finds personal meaning in statements that could apply to many people.

For example:

You have a need for other people to like and admire you, and yet you tend to be critical of yourself. While you have some personality weaknesses you are generally able to compensate for them. You have considerable unused capacity that you have not turned to your advantage. At times you have serious doubts whether you have made the right decision or done the right thing.

If these statements sound like they came from a newsstand astrology book, that may be because they did. Such statements are sometimes called Barnum statements and they are an effective element in the repertoire of anyone doing readings: astrologers, palm readers, psychics, and so on.

If the statements appear on a personality inventory that one believes has been especially prepared for you alone, one often validates the accuracy of such statements and thereby gives validity to the instrument used to arrive at them. If Barnum statements are validated when they have originated during a psychic reading, the validation is taken as also validating the psychic powers of the medium.

"Barnum effect" is an expression that seems to have originated with psychologist Paul Meehl, in deference to circus man P. T. Barnum's reputation as a master psychological manipulator who is said to have claimed "we have something for everybody."

http://www.skepdic.com/barnum.html

[Desertrose]

90. seems to me if one's dedication to science and

discussions is so strong, what is the difficulty with reading beyond page 1? If there are things that you do not agree with- either state that or ignore it. Why let it drive you away??


"I stopped checking in here many moons ago when the "questioning" and "challenges to conventional science" threads outnumbered the actual science threads. I think that stuff is something other than what I expect to find here."

If you are truly interested in matters of science, then why allow yourself to be put off so easily??Reminds me of a child pouting because things are not going the way *they* think it should go..."if we can't play the game my way I'm taking my ball & going home...."



Science either fulfills the promises it makes or it doesn't...questions shouldn't change that. Why do those who chose to question things threaten others so?
IMHO I think a lively debate and asking some perhaps unusual questions could get a lot more people interested in science than having a few telling everyone else that the only answers/questions come from one way of doing/thinking.

I'm curious how much music, literature & art would be created if everyone based their lives exclusively on using accepted scientific thinking only and never went out of the "box" ??

[beam me up scottie]

91. You do realize that this is called the SCIENCE forum, right ?

Didn't you beg Skinner for your own private little clubhouse where you could discuss pseudo-science in peace ?

How about you can discuss astrology in here if skeptics can debunk at will in your group ?

Sound fair ?

[Desertrose]

92. Now why would you automatically bring that up?

Are you declaring that I'm not allowed to have an interest in science? Am I not allowed to post in here because you say so?

Have I ever ever posted anything remotely that you self proclaimed experts (using that term very loosely here) determined as "pseudoscience" in this forum?

BMUS,are you aware that this is NOT YOUR FORUM? ...its an open forum and I was only asking a sincere question. Your reply certainly speaks volumes about many things.

BTW- didn't you all have to immediately have your own forum to debunk pseudoscience?? I believe its called "Skepticism, Science and Pseudoscience"?? So you could also do your thing there, correct?


edited-clarity/typos

[beam me up scottie]

93. This is the Science forum.

It is for discussing science, not pseudo-science.

This thread is for discussing the definition of science, not how fun it would be to have lively debates about unusual subjects.

But, if you wish to have lively debates about science, please start one.

I wouldn't want you to think that I'm trying to squelch your passion for all things scientific, now would I ?

After all, what do I know, I'm just one of those "science-worshipers".

[Desertrose]

95. Yes BMUS, thank you for pointing out the obvious.

Why do you keep bringing up to me about posting pseudoscience whan I am only wanting to join in the discussion here?

Since there have been other discussions in this forum that some feel there are not enough rational thinkers nor enough interest in science per ...I was merely offering my thoughts on what may help interest more in these discussions about scientific topics.

Your attitude is again duly noted and of course you are not trying to squelch anything, are you? I can tell that by your even handed approach to those you disagree with.


ta taa:)

[Kraklen]

96. Pseudoscience is something that should be squelched.

It's a synonym for ignorance.

Although if people want to be ignorant, that's fine with me.

[Celebration]

97. logic

I am trying to follow it.

pseudoscience=ignorance

ignorance=fine with you

Therefore, pseudoscience should be squelched!!

?????

[BurtWorm]

113. Why go away?

Because a science forum on DU is where one would expect to find other DUers interested in science, not the occult. I can get my science fix elsewhere. But a science fix is not what I would expect to get from the DU science forum.

[Name removed]

114. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Kraklen]

74. rigor

lack of rigor

[Maple]

76. Rigor is often overhyped too

but it sounds so...gee I dunno...manly...doesn't it? :D

[NNadir]

86. The construction of testable predictive hypotheses from observable data

generally constitutes science. Most often, but not always, the hypotheses can be expressed mathematically.

Pseudoscience is often couched in scientific terminology and sometimes makes predictive hypotheses, but often the hypotheses (such as they are) are retained - sometimes obstinately - in spite of, or even in defiance of, conflicting or absent supporting data. One clue that one is looking a pseudoscience is a claim by the person offering it that he or she is privy to special information that "the experts don't understand."

[Maple]

88. I think we already did that

although I don't know of anyone on this site ever claiming a discovery, and saying they're privy to special info the experts don't understand.

Mostly I've noticed that people ask questions, and try to come up with possible answers. Then we have the science police who denounce any answer but their own. Usually in scathing terms...which tends to shut down any further discussion.

[beam me up scottie]

87. Muriel had an excellent suggestion,

we can use the Skeptic group if we need to.

[arwalden]

98. *** Skinner Really Needs To Address This. ***

Although our scurrying off to the safe-haven of the Skeptic's group is a possible solution... it's the wrong thing to do! It's giving up and giving in. It's running away. (Remember, Hitler promised he'd stop with Czechoslovakia ... and the woo-woo's claimed that they would stop if they could ONLY have place of "their own". All they wanted was a safe-haven that was free from being molested by the mean old skeptics. Both lied.)

No matter how much the woo-woos want to pretend that pseudo-science is real science. No matter how much they play the wide-eyed oh-so-innocent "who-me" charade, it's clear to anyone with half a brain exactly what's going on here.

The verbal swordplay is entertaining, but it's getting nowhere.

Fact is, the bobble-head woo-woos are tired of simply nod-nod-nodding and constantly agreeing with each other. They are now BORED with their member's only dissent-free echo-chamber and they want to venture out into the real world again. And despite the protestations to the contrary, I'm convinced that they actually like (and look forward to) their interaction (and arguments) with skeptics.

But they want to have it both ways. They want to play, but they want to have a "safe" skeptic-free clubhouse that they can return to and lick their wounds.

All these games... all those who try to claim "but-I'm-just-trying-to-have-a-conversation"... it's complete HORSESHIT! A laughable woowoo act. As transparent as a, well, a CRYSTAL BALL.

It's nothing more than a concerted effort to blur the line between what's real and what's imaginary. It's an attempt to make legitimate that which is not.

Magic is not science.

Skinner, please... this needs your attention. They can't have it both ways.

Rational readers, *PLEASE REPLY* to this message if you agree that this "invasion" and polluting of the Science forum with off-topic magical threads needs to be addressed by the DU Admins.

-- Allen

[beam me up scottie]

99. I agree.

Completely.
Thanks for speaking up.

[rman]

106. I think it's pretty clear there are a few "usual suspects"

who do the polluting.

[Caution]

112. arwalden has nailed it here.

The constant "who me?" assault on science couched in "question everything" absurdity has made the scince forum useless as a place of discussion. Now it is worthy only of reading the first post in a thread and then moving on because inevitably it degenerates into garbage.

I think the request that the Science forum be switched to a Science group which self-moderates by those who are proponents of the scientific method is reasonable and a simple request.

If the moderating team is concerned that science news in particular won't be visible to the non-paying member, a simple solution also presents itself. Within any given thread that contains a true piece of science news can be cros-posted into LBN once consensus has been reached within the science group as a whole. And then if the anti-rational crowd wishes to jump in and pollute that thread they can certainly do so.

If the Science forum itself becomes a haven for total absurdity what is the recourse for those of us who enjoy rational discussion of scientific issues? Find another forum. Not much else unfortunately.

I would point out that the havens for the anti-rational are DU Groups and do not allow a dissenting viewpoint. It's amazing to me that we are not given the same courtesy when it comes to science.

(Cue anti-rational posters to come in and claim that the wish for a science-community moderated forum is proof of a monolithic science "belief-system" that does not allow questioning of methodology and won't allow "new and exciting" areas of study.)

[MrBenchley]

117. Thank you...

I agree.

[BurtWorm]

119. I agree.

A science forum should be for DUers interested in actual science. If this forum can't be relied on to be free of magical threads on topics like UFOs, psychic energy, Atlantis, crop circles, etc., then it's a reflection on DU's inability to deliver what is advertised.

It seems to me that the skeptics forum would be a better place for arguments about magic and faith-based scientizing.

[Caution]

110. I disagree with using the Skeptic forum

That forum is explicitly opened to the pseudo-scientific community where they are welcome to come in and spew their nonsense and we are welcome to attempt to debunk it. The Science forum itself should nto be open to such frivolity.

There are 4 or 5 people who regularly disrupt the science forum but do it by using the standard argument of the pseudo-scientist which boils down to not trusting the scientific method (no matter how they wish to portray themselves, this is the standard and only method of attack...it's laughable really because typically they actually think they are winning sa logical argument. After the fifteenth time they use the same exact argument we have a tendency to throw up our arms in exasperation.

I have no desire to have people banned from DU for expressing their beliefs no matter how much I may disagree with them so I do not alert on them specifically, only when their threads are clearly and obviously off-base and then I only request a lock, however the disruption of DU in general and rational forums in particular with thread after thread being knocked off-topic into pseudoscience has made DU an uncomfortable place for me to continue with, especially when the forums which I would use as a sanctuary are no longer rational.

DU purports to have a strict structure and there is a small group trying actively to disrupt this structure. When a conservative posts on liberal DU they are tombstoned. I'm not even asking that things so far as that the proponents of pseudo-science be tombstoned when they post to a forum dedicated to science, simply that a haven be created for science which iis moderated by those ho frequent it rather than the already over-taxed mod team who may not be able to recognize pseudo-science.

[Taxloss]

94. Science is based on the rigorous observation of repeatable phenomena.

Phenomena that can be demonstrated and repeated again, and again, and again, in sizeable samples and compared with control groups, and peer reviewed prior to publication.

Pseudoscience is a quick way to make money out of the less questioning members of society by selling Tarot readings, or crystals, or books about how the Martians built the pyramids, or something.

[dwckabal]

100. This question has been addressed

by myself and others so many times it's beginning to make me dizzy.

The participants here who espouse the "question everything" philosophy (or whatever you want to call it) have tuned their knowledge filters too low to be able to discriminate between truth and illusion. Reality must take precedence in the search for truth. Unfortunately, humans can be fooled and the line between reality and illusion is often a blurry one. And science is one of the best knowledge filters we have.

From The Borderlands of Science by Michael Shermer (p. 64):

It is not that outsiders cannot make important contributions to science. They can and have. But in order to think outside of the box one must first know what is inside the box (it's called graduate school), one must be able to convince those in the box that the box needs reinventing (it's called peer review), and, of course, one must be right (it's called research). Far from scientists being unaccepting of radical new ideas, any scientist worth his salt would love to witness or be part of a scientific revolution. But science is conservative. It cannot afford not to be. It makes rigid demands on its participants in order to weed out the bad ideas from the good.

Despite this conservatism, scientific revolutions do happen, and not all that infrequently. But for every lone genius working away in solitude who shifted the paradigm, shattered the pedestal, or smashed the status quo, ten thousand quacks working away in solitude didn't understand the paradigm, couldn't find the pedestal, or whiffed when swinging at the status quo...Clearly the problem here is not one of education or intelligence (many of the authors of these treatises have M.D.s and Ph.Ds tagged onto the names on their letterhead). The problem is there seems to be no screening process, no filter to weed out fantasy from reality.

So then who (or what) decides what is reality and what is illusion? Science and the scientific method. Until someone comes up with something better, it's the best tool we have.

[Maple]

101. And science snobs themselves are the best

method outside of religion for shutting down inquiry.

Any field afraid of questions is a field in trouble.

[dwckabal]

102. Somehow I knew you would say that

I must be psychic!

Seriously, are all scientists "science snobs?" Or are the only true scientists the ones who eschew the scientific method for more, shall we say, unsound methods? Or maybe only the ones you agree with, hmmm?

Your stubborness on this topic has transcended ridiculous and entered paranoid. You insist that scientists do not ask questions or are afraid to ask them--this is simply not true. They just don't waste time entertaining answers that fail to comply with the laws of nature. To suspend critical thinking--even for a moment--totally negates any meaningful conclusions that may be drawn from otherwise fruitful research.

BYW, please avoid ad hominum attacks. Argue against the arguement, not the person.

[Maple]

103. No, not all

However there is certainly a science establishment, and they decide who gets the nod and who doesn't.

They'll hound even a Nobel winner mercilessly...right out of employment...if that scientist delves into something 'unapproved' of.

Now please...enough with all this 'nobility of scientists' and how they are knights in shining armor.

They are ordinary human beings...and they don't like their favorite hobby horses upended...or their own oxes being gored...as new knowledge tends to do.

Since I've been attacked, personally, since the beginning of this topic, it's a little late to protest I'm afraid.

[dwckabal]

104. Please, enlighten us

on the particulars of this "scientific establishment."

For example, who are its members? Does it have a Board of Supervisors? How can one join this "establishment?" Do they have meetings to determine the "correct" scientific theories to promote? If not, how do they decide which theories are "approved" and which are not?

Does this sound ridiculous? It should. And so does your statement.

You have unwittingly shown your hand--I never claimed that scientists were "knights in shining armor." No one here has. Your paranoia is showing through. All I am saying is that scientists have to follow that precepts of the scientific method--anything else is pseudoscience.

Funny, I don't seem to be able to find any post attacking you personally; your ideas maybe, but that's surely fair game. Yet you dismiss Michael Shermer with a wave of the ad hominum wand: he's a "science snob." And it's never too late to call bullshit.

[Name removed]

105. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Pepperbelly]

109. he's not even a scientist ...

Shermer just uses the skepticism gig to make money. Oddly enough, the very claim he makes against "pseudo-scientists". Very odd.

[greyl]

115. Deal with the argument, not the arguer.

If you want to tap dance between the groups, learn the appropriate steps.

[salvorhardin]

118. That's not really true

Michael Shermer's education is in psychology (BA) and experimental psychology (MA). This does make the guy a scientist, albeit one who chose not to make science his career. Early on it appears, guaging from his CV, that he went into education and over the course of a decade he transitioned into a career popularizing science and his current gig being a professional skeptic. Along the way he earned a PhD in the History of Science.
http://www.skeptic.com/DrShermerCV.htm

Science is not a thing, it is a process by which we can make reasoned arguements about how the natural world works and predictions about how it might work in the future.

Similarly, a scientist is not always someone who makes their living from science but also someone who engages in the scientific process. Michael Shermer fits that definition of a scientist in both respects.

Also, your arguement that there is something fishy about Michael Shermer debunking pseudoscience because he does not make his living as a scientist is itself bunk. Do I need to be a politician to call fraud, corruption and croneyism on the Bush administration?

[Maple]

128. 'Amazing Randi' wannabees LOL

Ah yes, imitating a stage 'magician' and then expecting people to respect your 'scientific' discussions.

Unqualified as a scientist, and unable to even pull rabbits out of a hat...oh brother. :rofl:

[beam me up scottie]

131. Ah yes, #22

Refer to anyone who does not immediately agree with you as being uneducated on the matter, lacking in important information, or just plain too stupid to understand your magnificent statements.

[BurtWorm]

116. The operative word is "method"

Question generation is a part of science, but it's not the end of science. It's very easy to ask questions. If you don't try to answer them, you're just a question-generator.

It's not snobbery to think endless "out of the box" questioning is avant gard, compared to the backward, stuck-in-the-moment drudgery of "conventional" science?

[Maple]

130. Don't you have any balance at all?

I don't recall anyone insisting on ONLY questions, and no attempt to answer them.

However, answers claiming to be the ultimate word on the subject, with all further questions cut off, are equally silly

[BurtWorm]

135. Which scientist claims his or her answers are the ultimate word on

a subject? I think you're talking about a scientist made of straw.

[Maple]

137. LOL most of them

and all of you on here that are arguing against questions back them up.

[BurtWorm]

141. Now I'm going to ask you a question.

Do you have evidence for that statement? Do you have evidence that even one scientist thinks his or her word is the last word on any subject?

[Maple]

146. Oooh that's bad

even for this 'magicians' forum you have going here for you.

I'm sorry you did so badly in Logic 101

[BurtWorm]

152. I'll take that as a no.

Thank you.

[Name removed]

157. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BurtWorm]

159. Let's see: I ask if you can back up a claim of yours with proof

and you respond by making fun of my request. I can't see how I could take that as a yes, do you? So I take it you can't back up your claim. QED.

[greyl]

108. Part of the appeal of pseusci is that it affects our everyday lives.

Pseusci discoveries quickly lead to technological inventions that make life dramatically longer, faster, and easier. An ever bigger part of its attraction lies in its apparently practical common-sense methods. Pseusci evidence is gathered using our five senses, not intuition or magic. Pseusci knowledge emerges from carefully planned and controlled experiments. Hypotheses are formulated, tested, challenged, reevaluated. All the supporting data must be observed and measured objectively. Pseudo scientists report their findings and detail their work so that other researchers can verify or correct their conclusions. The whole process is right out in the open.

This is what attracts many to Pseudoscience. It is demonstrable, ordered, and impartial; its conclusions based strictly on observable, verifiable facts; its results are generally useful and frequently salable. Such a dependable approach appeals strongly to our practical side, to our common sense. Pseudoscience is thus the antithesis of irrationality, superstition, prejudice, and arbitrariness.

-Satirical adjustment of Thomas I. White

[arwalden]

122. That's A Wonderful Analysis!!

[onager]

123. Bwa-ha-ha! Thanks, and my vote...

...after I get done :rofl: ...

...is for anything that will not force me, as someone put it above, to wade thru a bunch of garbage threads about how astrology and crop circles are "science."

While reading those threads, I used to play the drinking game with how long it would take a woo-woo to invoke quantum physics, but I was in serous danger of becoming an alcoholic.

Along with the fascinating discussion in here about the scientific method (minus the usual Static Generators), I'd like to point out one other very obvious difference between science and pseudo-science: results.

This is much on my mind right now because I'm currently working in Alexandria, Egypt. Because I'm in the 'hood, I've been reading some locally-produced books about the golden age of Alexandria's incredible library...which, as one book notes, was more like a Third-Century BCE combination of the Library Of Congress, M.I.T., Harvard and several other major universities/libraries.

The Alexandria Library had a whole, massive section devoted to books on magic, the powers of various deities, astrology, divining, witchcraft, alchemy, etc.

At the same time, the Library probably housed the greatest assembly of mathematicians, astronomers, architects and general scientists ever seen in one place.

Then as now, the Woo-Woo Section produced not one damn useable thing. The believers in astrology and the other nonsense are still doing today what they were doing in 300 BCE--making incredible claims that never pan out when closely examined.

The other guys, on the Science bench, produced (among other things) the forty-story-tall Pharos Lighthouse in Alexandria...one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World which served as a critical life-saving aide for about a thousand years.

[Maple]

133. I don't recall

anyone posting anything about crop circles and astrology being science...I do recall people discussing crop circles, and wondering about their quantity and inventiveness.

As to Egypt...golly, have you figured out those pyramids yet? You've been at it, what, a couple of centuries now?

Think we could build one anytime soon?

You ever wonder how our libraries will be viewed in oh...5000 years?

Probably with laughter.

[Caution]

139. Astrology is presented as a science all the time.

My fiancee's mother is a professional astrologer and makes this argument every time it comes up. I could point to a hundred websites right now about crop circles as to the belief that they are created by aliens. You are making a specific attack on a generalization. Crop circles are used as an example because even though we know they are all man-made people persist in saying "no it's a conspiracy! aliens made them!"

Do I think we could build a pyramid? Have you actually thought about this question? Seriously? If you have then you would know the answer is absolutely we could build one. Heck, we *did* build one, and one that if the ancient egyptians had seen it would have totally freaked out about. You should check it out some time. It's in Las Vegas. As for "figuring them out" How do you mean? Have we figured out how they built them? Yes. Have we figured out why they built them? Yes. Have we figured out what they were for? Yes. Have we figured out how they use them to keep razors sharp? Yes (well we figured out that this is a total myth). We'd know even more about them if they had kep better records and had written this up and put that material in a library.

As to libraries? Well, Considering that we don't view the library of Alexandria with laughter or pretty much any library with laughter I'll make the assumption that you make the erroneous claim that in 5000 years people will be laughing at the knowledge of the day. It's funny I don't laugh at Isaac Newton or Aristotle or any other of a number of past scientists. I *hope* that 5000 years from now that the future will view us as amazingly primitive though if that is what you are getting at.

[Desertrose]

142. but not in THIS forum

if so, find me the link where anyone tried to post "astrology as a science" in this forum.

Please back up your claims with proof.

Thank you.

[Caution]

148. Where did I mention anything of the sort?

I'm merely pointing out the fact that astrologers often present astrology as a science, whether or not is is done in this forum is besides the point. A poster above alluded to wading through posts about astrology but his post was general in nature using astrology as an example, not in a specific manner.

[Maple]

143. Then go argue with your fiancee's mother

about it, not me.

Same with crop circle sites. Why are you here?...sheesh.

No, we couldn't build a pyramid today...sorry.

I don't mean yer ditzy Vegas crap for the tourists...I mean as in the same as the Egyptian one. If you think the two are comparable, you don't know much about either.

Although I'm glad you dispelled that nasty razor rumor...the whole world was breathless with anticipation over the answer to that one.

Shame on them for not passing down the blueprints though. How remiss of them. LOL

Newton isn't 5000 years in the past, he's very recent, and Aristotle was worshipped for centuries in much the same way as Einstein is now.

Future scientists...assuming they ever get over their astrology fixations and survive the apparently-frightening crop circle questions....LOL...will find us hilarious.

[Name removed]

138. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Skinner]

161. This thread is pointless.

It was good for a while, but now it's just the same thing over and over agein. I think we've had enough navel-gazing for one day.

This forum was perfectly fine until a few days ago when we started getting a bunch of nevel-gazing threads about some alleged invasion.

Instead of talking about the DU Science Forum, let's go back to the way things were before when we actually talked about Science.

And if someone starts fucking things up in here and disrupting and posting off-topic shit, instead of starting a half-dozen threads to complain about it, hit alert instead and let the mods decide.