Thread: Science vs Pseudoscience

Originally Posted by holli4pirating

I like your statements about falsifiability, but tell me more. What does the falsifiability of claims have to do with science or pseudoscience? And what counts as "systematic"? What do you mean when you say "systematic"? - Those are two different questions.

Your definition of pseudoscience, though, seems... not fully developed. You are correct, but your statement is circular. I also would ask that we move away from statements about discrediting or who is trying to discredit who. We are not talking about actual people or who is credible, but, rather, what is science, what is pseudoscience, and what is the difference.

Think hard, fellow forum members! That is my challenge. (<- What a statement to wrap up my 3000th post!)

Congrats on the 3k!

I said systematic because I was trying to keep the definition short, and I didn't want to get into describing the scientific method. (I mean, we could just link to a description of that, right?)

To me, the pursuit of science seems systematic because the process typically follows certain steps: research, thinking, hypotheses, testing, more thinking, etc. Additionally, papers are published in somewhat standard formats, they are subject to somewhat standard processes of review, etc. These aspects may not always be exactly the same, but they're generally very similar, from what I understand.

Regarding falsifiability, if a claim can't possibly be proven wrong, then there's nothing anyone can do to determine whether or not it's accurate. Put a different way, if a claim doesn't lead to predictions that either turn out to be correct or not, then it isn't useful.

If science is defined thoroughly, then I'm comfortable simply calling pseudoscience anything that is "non-science trying to pass itself off as science" (pseudo = false or counterfeit). It might seem circular in some regards, but the construction of the word itself necessarily invokes the definition of science, so...?