Science vs Pseudoscience

To me, science isn't a question of truth or knowledge, but how do we persue these things. I'm not talking about scientific knowledge, but the process by which we seek scientific knowledge. So while "knowledge" may change, the accepted practices for seeking out "knowledge" should be relatively consistent. Maybe "a science" vs "a pseudoscience" would have been a better way to phrase that.

To say that science is no more than perception or mass perception is, to me, extremely pessimistic. I think people tend to believe "scientists" ("good scientists") because what these people say, as the results of their work, has some significance to people. The question is, what is that process that we value as producing the "truth."

Gregs, you said

"No, I don't think so. The trouble is, as soon as you do an experiment or some kind of test on a human, the results are flawed, if you control the environment, the results are flawed. If you don't control the environment, you can't establish a cause and effect relationship and the results are flawed."

By this reasoning, I don't understand what circumstances a good experiment would take place under.

"Psychology basically holds it's hands up and says 'there are flaws, but it's the best we can do' and then a load of people repeat the experiement and get similar results and it's 'good enough'."

Is this part an issue? It sounded like the types of scientific experiments above followed roughly the same pattern. I'll tell you, in the field and the lab, there is waaay more "well, that's the best we can do" than you'd think.

Also, I think you've skipped a lot of my questions/points relating to psychology as an emerging science (but still a pseudoscience). I'd be interested to hear what you have to say, should you feel like taking the time.

Relatively consistent? Relative to what? Relative and therefore uncertain. Consistently uncertain?

:shrug:

I will go so far as to say that not only astrology, mentioned earlier, but even much of astronomy falls under the pseudo-science category.

Ever hear an astrophysicist launch into a theory? Oh my! Obviously way over my head, but black holes, string theories, etc, etc, are at best based on circumstantial evidence, or trying to get to an answer that fits what is observable.

Has a black hole ever been directly observed? I do not believe so. Only the effects of what is assumed to be a strong gravitational field are observable.

Science is a fantastic tool. Remarkably powerful. But you have to have the right tool for the job, and know which end of it to use!

A microscope is an amazing device, with which you can probe the microscopic world, etc, etc. But it is useless if you want to look at the stars.

Personally, I think microscopes are best suited for checking honing, but honing is a pseudo-science as well.....:)

Relative to each other. I don't understand your question.

Also, relative does not imply uncertain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seraphim

I will go so far as to say that not only astrology, mentioned earlier, but even much of astronomy falls under the pseudo-science category.

Ever hear an astrophysicist launch into a theory? Oh my! Obviously way over my head, but black holes, string theories, etc, etc, are at best based on circumstantial evidence, or trying to get to an answer that fits what is observable.

Has a black hole ever been directly observed? I do not believe so. Only the effects of what is assumed to be a strong gravitational field are observable.

Science is a fantastic tool. Remarkably powerful. But you have to have the right tool for the job, and know which end of it to use!

A microscope is an amazing device, with which you can probe the microscopic world, etc, etc. But it is useless if you want to look at the stars.

Personally, I think microscopes are best suited for checking honing, but honing is a pseudo-science as well.....:)

---

Your point about black holes is an interesting one. I think we'd have to define directly observed to really get into it. There are lots of things that are found only by observing their interactions with other bodies. But when indirect evidence is strong and clear, I see no reason to discount it. That said, I'm not sure I'm totally convinced of black holes either.

Unless we are discussing the role of indirect evidence in science or pseudoscience, I'd like to stick to the topic at hand, which is how to define and distinguish between these two words.

It would be interesting to consider whether or not honing can be approached scientifically... but first we'd have to know what we mean by "scientifically."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by holli4pirating

Your point about black holes is an interesting one. I think we'd have to define directly observed to really get into it. There are lots of things that are found only by observing their interactions with other bodies. But when indirect evidence is strong and clear, I see no reason to discount it. That said, I'm not sure I'm totally convinced of black holes either.

Unless we are discussing the role of indirect evidence in science or pseudoscience, I'd like to stick to the topic at hand, which is how to define and distinguish between these two words.

It would be interesting to consider whether or not honing can be approached scientifically... but first we'd have to know what we mean by "scientifically."

---

The common understanding of what a black hole is (a super dense gravitational well) would fit the observable evidence.

But wouldn't also a physical hole in space? Not a collapsed star, but a big gaping hole in the barrier of our universe? Like when you pull the plug on a tub of water, everything swirls down the drain, it even has the same swirl that galaxies have, which is further indirect evidence of my newly hatched theory. So, I am launching my new thesis: NO black holes, they are hole holes...and we're all going down the drain.

See how easy psuedo-science is?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seraphim

The common understanding of what a black hole is (a super dense gravitational well) would fit the observable evidence.

But wouldn't also a physical hole in space? Not a collapsed star, but a big gaping hole in the barrier of our universe? Like when you pull the plug on a tub of water, everything swirls down the drain, it even has the same swirl that galaxies have, which is further indirect evidence of my newly hatched theory. So, I am launching my new thesis: NO black holes, they are hole holes...and we're all going down the drain.

See how easy psuedo-science is?

---

I did state quite clearly that I myself was not convinced that back holes exist, so I don't disagree that there may be more than one explanation for indirect evidence. I'm simply saying that I don't think indirect evidence should be discounted or given less consideration simply because it is indirect.

Also, just because a theory seems wild or outlandish does not mean that it is not scientific. If you had solid evidence to support your hole in space statement, a theory describing holes and space and how they should behave, and testable predictions that were found to be correct, you would have a scientific theory (as we've defined science here thus far).

There's also something to be said for how well a new conclusion fits with the rest of the thoroughly tested conclusions we already have.

Say I found a hole in my backyard that seemed impossibly deep. No matter what I tossed into it, I couldn't hear anything hit the bottom. No rope I dropped into it ever came back dirty, either. I could draw a number of conclusions from these experiments:

1) this hole is not really so deep, but there is a portal at the bottom that leads to another place, like a wormhole

2) there are gnomes at the bottom who are softly catching the rocks and coiling the ropes in such a manner as to keep them clean

3) the earth at the bottom of the hole is soft, so I can't hear the rocks hit, and my rope just isn't long enough

You could surely draw a huge number of other conclusions, as well. Looking at the three listed above, it's fairly clear that only one of them has much of a chance of being true. Why? Because the others would fly in the face of what we know from physics, zoology, geology, etc.

In that sense, I view the accumulated knowledge we've already gained as a sort of spiderweb. As time goes by, we make the web more and more detailed, but its basic structure doesn't change a whole lot. Anything new that we discover might rock the boat in a certain field, occasionally replacing a whole strand or two in the metaphorical spiderweb, but it isn't likely to simultaneously invalidate previous findings from multiple other fields. If anything, more often than not, it would probably reveal the way data from those other fields fits together in ways we hadn't thought of yet.

Could multiple fields be turned on their heads at once? Sure, but I think it happens less often as we discover more and the fields get increasingly specialized. Incidentally, this is how I intuitively judge whether or not certain claims are bogus. If someone tells me that carrying around a certain crystal can cure my cold, I don't take it seriously for a second (beyond any placebo effect), because it would contradict much of what we've come to accept as true from studying immunology, pathology, physics, etc. The more such a claim would necessitate re-weaving the entire web of interconnected knowledge we have, the less likely I am to believe it (and the more likely I am to label such things as baloney, or pseudoscience).

Sorry if any of this is off-topic. Just felt like rambling with my morning coffee. :)

Psudoscience is a thrilling fictional novel and science is a well written but not as exciting journal.