Thread: Science vs Pseudoscience

Originally Posted by sparq

Ding ding! This round is up.

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

I'm so on it!

Well, let me bring some reality - direct observations do not exist in absolute sense.

To observe something means to collect knowledge through senses, which is actually a process in itself - something causes the respective receptors to make certain chemical reactions which produce electrical charges that are transmitted along neurons and end up in the brain where they do something.
Now any part of this process can be modified by another process and in fact it is constantly being modified. Even without bringing the uncertainties from quantum mechanics which is the only theory able to describe these processes, it's pretty clear that the concept of direct observation is very ambiguous.

So, there are observations and there are theories that are attempting to provide some structure to these observations and predict future observations. The level where this becomes science is basically determined by the willingness to account for any phenomena that can affect the results. Of course the planets' and stars' configuration has an effect on everything happening on earth. Using the applicable theories of physics (gravity) these effects can be evaluated and predictions can be made.
Now if the predictions are made without using tested scientific theories within the domain of their validity, then those predictions are at best hypotheses.

In the case of black holes, a hole in space, collapsed star, or a little gugi- daemon in there, taken by themselves are equally meaningless hypotheses. What makes one of them valuable is the theory based on that hypothesis which actually can make predictions that can be tested.


As far as I'm concerned scientific law is pretty much the equivalent of 'extensively tested scientific theory which can be formulated simply'.
Newton's laws of mechanics are actually wrong - there are observations which contradict them. But they are still called laws and remain in the physics textbooks, because they are simple and in many cases can make correct predictions because you don't have enough precision to measure the differences where they are wrong (plus their historic value, of course).

Nah, you are all wrong. Science has an ever changing definition, but generally it boils down to whatever types of research bring money to the Institution in question.

And that, gentlemen, is science.

James.

Practical science-hard cold facts.
Theoretical science-mathamatical models and conjecture.

Pseudo or junk science is when you take a tiny bit of truth and a huge lump of theoretical and try to pass it off as Practical science.As soon as you do this you are basically lieing. All junk science reports usually begin with the words,( I believe,may,might,could,possibly ect.) and then proceed to try and convince you that it is 100% truth.
The sad part is that, the majority of science today is junk science.

Before Newton, apples never fell of trees.

It was the law.

Originally Posted by AussiePostie

Practical science-hard cold facts.
Theoretical science-mathamatical models and conjecture.

Pseudo or junk science is when you take a tiny bit of truth and a huge lump of theoretical and try to pass it off as Practical science.

And how can you tell the difference?

Originally Posted by holli4pirating

And how can you tell the difference?

Real science does its best to remove personal bias and is always trying to disprove itself. If the findings can be repeated and still be shown to be true even by the harshest critic then it lives as science. It gets published in peer reviewed journals.

Pseudo science uses real science, but fails because it cherry picks its favourite bits and sells you a bill of goods. It gets broadcast directly to the public via the media.

Originally Posted by xman

Pseudo science uses real science, but fails because it cherry picks its favourite bits and sells you a bill of goods. It gets broadcast directly to the public via the media.

Sounds a bit like global warming hey?

Originally Posted by JMS

Sounds a bit like global warming hey?

No, Mark. Although there is still some debate about the issue, the human cause of global warming has been published in peer reviewed papers and it has not been discounted. It's more than just media hype. Please do your research. All I did was type 'global warming peer review' into Google to confirm my answer. [/off topic segment]

Originally Posted by xman

No, Mark. Although there is still some debate about the issue, the human cause of global warming has been published in peer reviewed papers and it has not been discounted. It's more than just media hype. Please do your research. All I did was type 'global warming peer review' into Google to confirm my answer. [/off topic segment]

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.