Science vs Pseudoscience

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ControlFreak1

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

---

To quote the original post,
"So while "knowledge" may change, the accepted practices for seeking out "knowledge" should be relatively consistent."

By "the accepted practices," I meant our idea of what counts as scientific reasoning/experimentation/etc. The knowledge may change, but the method does not. As such, regardless of what is discovered by "science," the notion of what "science" is more or less unchanged.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seraphim

And that is what I'm saying: the assumption is that a black hole is what is bending the light

---

Yep. That is sciences working hypothesis. Scientists admit they might be ignorant to some other object that has these properties. That is key in science, if scientists we not open to other possibilities, THEN it would, perhaps, be a pseudoscience.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by holli4pirating

To quote the original post,
"So while "knowledge" may change, the accepted practices for seeking out "knowledge" should be relatively consistent."

By "the accepted practices," I meant our idea of what counts as scientific reasoning/experimentation/etc. The knowledge may change, but the method does not. As such, regardless of what is discovered by "science," the notion of what "science" is more or less unchanged.

---

'the notion of what science is', Is that what we have come to in this day and age? Science is a notion? What happened to the rigors of testable observable experimental science?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ControlFreak1

What happened to the rigors of testable observable experimental science?

---

That is a notion of what science is. The whole point of this thread was to define what science is and what counts as science. Please do share your thoughts, if it suits you.

Science, at least was, what you could observe and test and repeat, and after some period of testing and proving it would be accepted as a theory or eventually a law. Like thermodynamics, gravity, inertia, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ControlFreak1

Science, at least was, what you could observe and test and repeat, and after some period of testing and proving it would be accepted as a theory or eventually a law. Like thermodynamics, gravity, inertia, etc.

---

An interesting start, I quite like the first part, though I'm not sure why you included "at least was." I do think by what you've written so far, a number of fields that are accepted to be pseudoscience (such as psychology) would be fall into "science" as you've described it.

I also think you should recheck definitions of theory and law, as no scientific theory can ever become a scientific law. Also, thermodynamics is a field of study, gravity is a phenomena which is explained by a theory, and inertia is a property of matter, so I'm not sure what similarities between these three you are drawing on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by holli4pirating

An interesting start, I quite like the first part, though I'm not sure why you included "at least was." I do think by what you've written so far, a number of fields that are accepted to be pseudoscience (such as psychology) would be fall into "science" as you've described it.

I also think you should recheck definitions of theory and law, as no scientific theory can ever become a scientific law. Also, thermodynamics is a field of study, gravity is a phenomena which is explained by a theory, and inertia is a property of matter, so I'm not sure what similarities between these three you are drawing on.

---

If that were true then nothing could become a law. They were first theories before they became laws. Those things are called laws because they have always been observed to produce the same result.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ControlFreak1

If that were true then nothing could become a law. They were first theories before they became laws. Those things are called laws because they have always been observed to produce the same result.

---

No. Theories do not graduate into Laws. Laws are not at the top of a ladder.

Where did you get the idea that this is how it works?

Laws don't start out as theories? Ok.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ControlFreak1

Laws don't start out as theories? Ok.

---

I'm happy you learned something today.

I did ask where you got the idea that laws started out as theories. Care to tell?