Thread: Science vs Pseudoscience

Originally Posted by sparq

X, your claim that the AGW is a proven theory that is not challenged by skeptics in the ranks of scientists is a very bold one; bordering with a religion.

Please read my post again, I never said such a thing. Let's get back on topic.

"LOOK! The cliffs of insanity!"

Originally Posted by ControlFreak1

"LOOK! The cliffs of insanity!"

It's inconceivable!

Originally Posted by Seraphim

It's inconceivable!

"You keep using that word. I don't think that it means what you think it means."

Originally Posted by ControlFreak1

"You keep using that word. I don't think that it means what you think it means."

Just because something is inconceivable, doesn't mean it's not scientifically valid. As long as you get it published, and no one can disprove it, you're Golden!

Originally Posted by holli4pirating

Black holes have been created in labs, and they are created in our atmosphere all the time as well. The black holes that I am speaking of fit the only important definition of a black hole, which is the ratio of mass to radius - namely the Schwarzchild radius.

Can you please post a link for that? Sounds like a bit of theoretical hocus-pocus going on there....

Especially if you use things which can't be proven or disproven.

Originally Posted by Seraphim

Can you please post a link for that? Sounds like a bit of theoretical hocus-pocus going on there....

Here's the first example google brought me to:

"Although theory predicts that microscopic black holes decay rapidly, even hypothetical stable black holes can be shown to be harmless by studying the consequences of their production by cosmic rays."

From The safety of the LHC

I searched Google with: black hole cosmic ray earth atmosphere

I'd make a video, but I'm not as cool as X.

Originally Posted by holli4pirating

And how can you tell the difference?

Sometimes it,s not easy, but basically if you find that the "reseacher" has a barrow to push on the subject it will be a flawed study.
Example-The anti tobacco movements statement that "even 30 seconds exposure to second hand tobacco smoke will harm you"
But when you look at every scientific study done on this, even the study done by the world health organization, this statement is not true. But this statment is peddled as if it is a scientific fact, when the only fact associated with this statment is that it is a blatant lie.
They did take junk science to new heights with "third hand smoke" Even they couldn,t make that one swim.

Originally Posted by AussiePostie

Sometimes it,s not easy, but basically if you find that the "reseacher" has a barrow to push on the subject it will be a flawed study.
Example-The anti tobacco movements statement that "even 30 seconds exposure to second hand tobacco smoke will harm you"
But when you look at every scientific study done on this, even the study done by the world health organization, this statement is not true. But this statment is peddled as if it is a scientific fact, when the only fact associated with this statment is that it is a blatant lie.
They did take junk science to new heights with "third hand smoke" Even they couldn,t make that one swim.

Yeah, I researched that. They had studies for years that couldn't prove anything about second had smoke, then they had one that might have proven something, and the whole anti-smoking movement ran with it the best they could. I haven't looked in depth at the study, but I have a feeling it was something like they did with marijuana to prove it was harmful-namely force the rat to inhale what would be the human equivalent of several tons at once.

There's a good example of psuedo science for you, alot of these studies to keep drugs like LSD and marijuana illegal.