Thread: Science vs Pseudoscience

Originally Posted by Oglethorpe

Re: black holes: they can't be mimicked in labs (at least by definition) because they are not strong enough to attract photons.

Re: the big bag: again, by definition, is not pesudo science. i'd go so far as to call it "hard science". it's a theory with enough scientific evidence to support it's occurrence. the details of how it happened are what's in question (i.e. what is the explosive strength required to cause the particles to expand at the rate at which they did so as to not cause it to implode upon itself.


to be honest, i don't like the term pseudo-science.

I really can't list Big Bang under hard science at all. It is conjecture, based on scientific ideas, but conjecture all the same.

Perhaps it is not expansion, but rather attraction from something beyond the range we can investigate?

There is some discourse as to why it seems that the rate of expansion is increasing, as opposed to slowing down, as would be reasonable to expect if the Big Bang theory is the guiding principle.

I say that is due to attaraction from sources outside of what we can percieve, and tghus, the objects on the outer reaches of the observable universe are becoming increasingly attrated to these Zbodies (I just made that up!), and thus making them accelerate, not slow down.

I'm calling this the Big Suck theory, as all the matter is being sucked away further and further, faster and faster.

Well, when you let something evaporate in a vacuum the vapor disperses itself evenly- this is the second law of thermo/entropy, basically, so how do we know its not just some random diffusion of matter into a vacuum?

But we digress. The original thread was about science in general, not astronomy. Though I would like to point out that the definitions we are generating are pseudoscientific in nature.

Originally Posted by Stubear

Science: Comparing two or more similar things in an environment where the variables are known and posting an unbiased account of the results.

Science is watertight, clear, concise and backed up by empirical evidence that was generated using a fair and unbiased experiment.

Pseudoscience is fluff, smoke, mirrors, political spin or uses falsified evidence. I'm not saying its always wrong, but it is definately misleading and uses a bit of truth to cover a load of junk.

Science has a scientific process that it follows, pseudoscience doesnt.

By your definition of science, it sounds like a double blind taste test to determine which of two types of chocolate tastes better would be scientific. While the process may be scientific, I don't think the results are. Or I could compare the temperatures of two beakers of water by smelling them. I'm comparing them, I know the variables, and the test is unbiased. Is that science?

Why is science watertight? What about the process makes it so? How many scientific papers do you read that are clear and concise?

To say that science has a scientific process is quite circular. What are the criteria for a process to be scientific. For all you've said, though there is a start in your first section, there is very little definition. You've said what science is as the result of it following a "scientific process" - watertight, backed up, evidence based - but nothing about what defines something as scientific.

Originally Posted by khaos

Pseudoscience is practiced by philosophers, observing phenomena and theorizing models.

Like Einstein and all other theoretical physicists?

Originally Posted by Seraphim

After a quick trip through cyber-space in search of info on black holes, I came across the Hubble official site, which had some stuff on black holes.

OK, so the theory is that a black hole is a collapsed giant star, right?

But through the laws of conservation of matter, don't both the star and the resulting black hole both have to have the same mass? Just because it collapses, and gets smaller, does not therefore increase it's mass, and make it all of a suddden a different gravitational force. The gravity per unit area would certainly be higher, but the overall mass must still be the same. And on a cosmic scale, does it matter if the mass is a few thousands of miles in diameter, or the size of a loaf of bread, if the nearest object is x millions of miles away?



Another ψάρια-science topic (since it may fall niether ubnder science, nor psuedo-science, I'm making a third category: fishy science): the Big Bang and the expanding universe.

So, if the theory is that the universe was created all of a sudden in the Big Bang. What was there before? What is outside of the bubble of our expanding sphere of the known universe? Is science saying that there is such a thing as nothing? An absence of anything?

Black holes - when the volume decreases, objects are able to get much, much closer to the black hole, and that is where gravity increases dramatically. Yes, if you are 10 light years away there is no difference, but when you are just outside the event horizon there is a huge difference.

Big Bang Theory - while the theory may be largely incomplete, that does not make it non-scientific. The structure of the universe, cosmic background radiation, the expansion of the universe, and a number of other carefully documented phenomena can be explained through a theory such as the big bang theory. Is the theory correct? Maybe. Is it a scientific theory? Yes.

Originally Posted by Seraphim

The press headlines may say so, which sells papers, but I think the facts say differently:
Pseudo Black Hole Created in Lab - Yahoo! News



They have developed things that mimic certain aspects of black holes, they have not created mini black holes.

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.

Originally Posted by khaos

The big bang theory is obviously pseudo science! its definitely not been studied and no numbers ever agree. Its as classic an example as geocentricism. Scientists observe somethings and make a guess, then set out proving that guess, rather than investigating.

In what way is the big bang theory geocentric?

I'm sure there are scientists who are out there trying to prove the big bang theory, but there are lots of others seeking out alternate explanations.

Originally Posted by Seraphim

I really can't list Big Bang under hard science at all. It is conjecture, based on scientific ideas, but conjecture all the same.

me--- So in what way is the Big Bang Theory conjecture and not science? What is the difference. That is the point of this thread.

Perhaps it is not expansion, but rather attraction from something beyond the range we can investigate?

me--- And perhaps there is no gravity, but little fairies that push on everything, but they're too small to see.

There is some discourse as to why it seems that the rate of expansion is increasing, as opposed to slowing down, as would be reasonable to expect if the Big Bang theory is the guiding principle.

me---- The truth or untruth of the Big Bang Theory has nothing to do with whether the rate of expansion of the universe is increasing or decreasing. There could have been an explosion and then increasing expansion or decreasing expansion - the explosion and the expansion are not directly related.

I say that is due to attaraction from sources outside of what we can percieve, and tghus, the objects on the outer reaches of the observable universe are becoming increasingly attrated to these Zbodies (I just made that up!), and thus making them accelerate, not slow down.

me----- This is conjecture, because it is not based on any observations or evidence. The Big Bang theory is based on observations and evidence, and also fits quite well with the rest of physics.

I'm calling this the Big Suck theory, as all the matter is being sucked away further and further, faster and faster.

I wonder if it will be clear which is my text...

I'd like to say that, while there are seeming digressions, they are not really. In each digression, there is a discussion of whether something is science or pseudoscience. I would encourage you all to look at each digression and, in determining whether something is science or pseudoscience, examine your reasons for coming to your conclusion and share those reasons with us. Your reasons are how you define and distinguish science from pseudoscience. In doing so, we will continue to formulate the definitions this thread was created to find.

Originally Posted by Seraphim
I really can't list Big Bang under hard science at all. It is conjecture, based on scientific ideas, but conjecture all the same.

me--- So in what way is the Big Bang Theory conjecture and not science? What is the difference. That is the point of this thread.

Perhaps it is not expansion, but rather attraction from something beyond the range we can investigate?

me--- And perhaps there is no gravity, but little fairies that push on everything, but they're too small to see.

There is some discourse as to why it seems that the rate of expansion is increasing, as opposed to slowing down, as would be reasonable to expect if the Big Bang theory is the guiding principle.

me---- The truth or untruth of the Big Bang Theory has nothing to do with whether the rate of expansion of the universe is increasing or decreasing. There could have been an explosion and then increasing expansion or decreasing expansion - the explosion and the expansion are not directly related.

I say that is due to attaraction from sources outside of what we can percieve, and tghus, the objects on the outer reaches of the observable universe are becoming increasingly attrated to these Zbodies (I just made that up!), and thus making them accelerate, not slow down.

me----- This is conjecture, because it is not based on any observations or evidence. The Big Bang theory is based on observations and evidence, and also fits quite well with the rest of physics.

I'm calling this the Big Suck theory, as all the matter is being sucked away further and further, faster and faster.

me--- So in what way is the Big Bang Theory conjecture and not science? What is the difference. That is the point of this thread.

It is trying to describe something that happened, unobserved X thousands, millions, billions, or zillions of years ago. Scientists can look at stars whizzing away through the cosmos, but that is no more proof of the Big Bang than is the idea of the little fairey pushing them away.

me--- And perhaps there is no gravity, but little fairies that push on everything, but they're too small to see.

Gravity is.
Science really has no real idea of exactly what the dynamic is that makes gravity work, all we know is that it does, and some info on what mass creates what sort of gravitational pull.

me---- The truth or untruth of the Big Bang Theory has nothing to do with whether the rate of expansion of the universe is increasing or decreasing. There could have been an explosion and then increasing expansion or decreasing expansion - the explosion and the expansion are not directly related.

The rate of expansion obviously has to be relaed to the alleged explosion itself. How could it possibly be de-coupled?

me----- This is conjecture, because it is not based on any observations or evidence. The Big Bang theory is based on observations and evidence, and also fits quite well with the rest of physics.

My Big Suck theory is no more conjecture than the Big Bang. They both propose mechanisms to explain why it appears that objects appear to be moving away from each other at a rapid rate. I just submit a different dynamic of getting to the same result. Astronomers often mention getting images from the "edge of space", well, that's just as far as they are able to see, right? that does not mean that is all there is. Unless they are saying that there is a great Nothing beyond the edge of the universe, then there has to be Something there, right? So, I propose that there is something with a gravitational pull, that would also explain why there is noticeable expansion to the known universe.

Or perhaps the whole idea of the Big Bang is wrong in the first place? Perhaps there was/is no "start" point for the universe? What if the universe always was, and is indeed infinite, which would fit Khoaos's idea of stuff simply expanding in a vacuum, a limitless space.

The Big Bang supposes a "start time" event, yet does not propose what proceeded it, or what exists beyond it. That is a pretty big hole in a theory to simply dismiss and call it a winner. It is unsubstantiated, and thus I list it as conjecture.

Originally Posted by Seraphim

It is trying to describe something that happened, unobserved X thousands, millions, billions, or zillions of years ago. Scientists can look at stars whizzing away through the cosmos, but that is no more proof of the Big Bang than is the idea of the little fairey pushing them away.

So does that mean there can be no scientific theory about anything in the past simply because it cannot presently be observed?



Gravity is.
Science really has no real idea of exactly what the dynamic is that makes gravity work, all we know is that it does, and some info on what mass creates what sort of gravitational pull.

Yes, there are laws about gravity and it existence, and there are scientific theories that attempt to explain it. There are scientific theories about how gravity works, even though "science really has no idea of exactly what the dynamic is."



The rate of expansion obviously has to be relaed to the alleged explosion itself. How could it possibly be de-coupled?

The explosion would set the initial conditions, but there has been more than enough time for transient factors to have far outweighed those initial conditions.


My Big Suck theory is no more conjecture than the Big Bang. They both propose mechanisms to explain why it appears that objects appear to be moving away from each other at a rapid rate. I just submit a different dynamic of getting to the same result. Astronomers often mention getting images from the "edge of space", well, that's just as far as they are able to see, right? that does not mean that is all there is. Unless they are saying that there is a great Nothing beyond the edge of the universe, then there has to be Something there, right? So, I propose that there is something with a gravitational pull, that would also explain why there is noticeable expansion to the known universe.

I was going to address each of your next statements, but I think it comes down to misinterpreting or misunderstanding the big bang theory. Take a look Big Bang - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Or perhaps the whole idea of the Big Bang is wrong in the first place? Perhaps there was/is no "start" point for the universe? What if the universe always was, and is indeed infinite, which would fit Khoaos's idea of stuff simply expanding in a vacuum, a limitless space.

The Big Bang supposes a "start time" event, yet does not propose what proceeded it, or what exists beyond it. That is a pretty big hole in a theory to simply dismiss and call it a winner. It is unsubstantiated, and thus I list it as conjecture.

here's ten characters and then some...

Ding ding! This round is up.

The next round - string theory vs. LQG. Sharpen your pencils please!

Originally Posted by sparq

Ding ding! This round is up.

The next round - string theory vs. LQG. Sharpen your pencils please!

If I knew what LQG was I'd debunk it immediately!

Personally, I like pseupo - particularly tomat pseupo. Too bad itsa too late to comment.