Science vs Pseudoscience

**Seraphim** · 11-01-2009, 02:46 PM

Originally Posted by holli4pirating

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).

Holli4, I wasn't arguing with you on the subject, but rather just trying to make up an example for the sake of furthering the discussion.

Let me say this much: just because a statement is made by a scientist, that does not make it scientific.

I would say that wild outlandish statements that are not well supported are not scientifically valid.

My hole in space theory uses the observable swirl of water down the drain to show that it is exactly the same dynamic observable in galactic swirling to support my theory.

Indirect evidence certainly should be given less consideration.

**holli4pirating** · 11-01-2009, 06:56 PM

Originally Posted by northpaw

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

Lots of great stuff in there, especially about the need for theories to fit together. And about the rare upturning of fields. Indeed, what you're written is quite reminiscent of Kuhn's discussions of paradigms and normal science and paradigm shifts.

Originally Posted by ndw76

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

Often they appear the other way around...

Originally Posted by Seraphim

Indirect evidence certainly should be given less consideration.

I'm curious as to why you say this. I think it would be best if we define indirect evidence before proceeding.

**xman** · 11-01-2009, 08:06 PM

This seems relevant.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u34Bh...layer_embedded

**ControlFreak1** · 11-01-2009, 08:42 PM

Originally Posted by holli4pirating

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

Also, relative does not imply uncertain.

You mean relative to changing knowledge, right? And there is no way of knowing if or when or how knowledge may change, right? Doesn't consistent mean not changing?
Just figured that maybe you just meant relative.

**holli4pirating** · 11-01-2009, 08:49 PM

I was referring to the standards of what counts as "scientific," not scientific knowledge (or any knowledge, for that matter).

**Seraphim** · 11-01-2009, 09:56 PM

Xman, I would really love to hear your opinion and viewpoints on the many discussions we have, as opposed to just Youtube links.

I'm not trying to be snarkey, but in light of a discussion, I like to hear what the other person has to say, in their own words.

**gregs656** · 11-01-2009, 09:58 PM

Originally Posted by Seraphim

Has a black hole ever been directly observed? I do not believe so.

I think they have. As you say, we have seen a round object 'bending' light, but I'm pretty sure last year or maybe even early this year we had a peak at a black hole at the centre of the milky way.

As for psychology, a 'good' experiment in psychology is basically one that is repeatable and has good internal validity. Then that experiment can be applied to a broader population and a meta analysis can take place. One of the best psychology experiments (in my humble opinion) is 'The strange situation', but the bobo doll study is another good example.

Good psychology experiments are simple, and involve quite a bit of deception. Unfortunately, some are simply too deceptive for today (Milgram did some quality experiments) and would simply never happen.

**ControlFreak1** · 11-01-2009, 10:02 PM

Originally Posted by holli4pirating

I was referring to the standards of what counts as "scientific," not scientific knowledge (or any knowledge, for that matter).

Well, ok, you said accepted practices for seeking out "knowledge". And you said knowledge may change.

**Seraphim** · 11-01-2009, 10:07 PM

Originally Posted by holli4pirating

I'm curious as to why you say this. I think it would be best if we define indirect evidence before proceeding.

Indirect evidence is not as scientifically valid in my opinion as direct evidence.

With direct evidence there is likely only one clear explaination of what is going on. With indirect, there could be multiple explanations, as outlined in the rope down the hole example above.

And as far as the articles about actually seeing a black hole, I do not think that's quite right. And that is what I'm saying: the assumption is that a black hole is what is bending the light, so the press release says so, when really the evidence is still indirect, with the best guess being the theory of a collapsed star gravity well black hole.

**holli4pirating** · 11-01-2009, 10:18 PM

Again, Seraphim, please define what you mean by indirect evidence as compared to direct evidence. Until you do, I cannot really be sure of what you are discussing or of whether or not we are discussing the same thing.

Thread: Science vs Pseudoscience

LinkBack

Thread Tools

Display

Posting Permissions