Results 1 to 10 of 172
Thread: Science vs Pseudoscience
Threaded View
-
10-31-2009, 09:08 PM #6
Don't some psychologists have skill and employ technique?
So the requirement for evidence is there, but what is good evidence. Is a person born under a certain sign and possessing of the qualities associated with that sign good evidence? What about a million people?
I'm curious about your inclusion of the word "useful" in your definition of science. Can you explain why you've put that in there? Also, what do you mean by dogmatic? I think that is a word that is often thrown around without a clear definition. Einstein was pretty dogmatic when he said that God does not play with dice - but there are arguments that he did not approach quantum mechanics scientifically. Then again, some say that quantum mechanics itself is not scientific. Both sides have their reasons... I'm sure.
Pseudoscience is a sales technique - so it is the way in which people push their claims, not the actual claims, that is pseudoscience?
I'm not challenging what you are saying, just trying to draw out and understand as much of your view as possible.
I'd also like to say that psychology is an interesting field in this discussion, because some say that a true science which is not yet fully developed or advanced may appear as a pseudoscience, and some say that psychology is still in it's early stages. One could say, depending on one's definition of science and pseudoscience, that psychology is currently a pseudoscience but could develop into science.