Quote Originally Posted by treydampier View Post
First off, this is a very deep philosophical question that has no correct answer. I for one have no clue how to answer it, but here is my take. Here is my idea from my biochemistry background.
To get a scientific concept to become scientific law, it must be reproducible. The purpose of medical journals is to present an experiment and put it out in the open to be tested by others.
Here is an example. Suturing minor "clean" lacerations in the ER using sterile technique versus, using regular gloves and comparing infection rates after the suturing.
Science: The Journal of Emergency Medicine studied this and concluded the infection rate was no better statistically using sterile technique
Pseudoscience: Saying that using sterile technique is better because its sterile. The testing and results speak to this not being true.
Scientists developed the method to make others able to test one's work and then draw conclusions. The reason psychology is not considered true science by many is that each person is too unique to make a reproducible result at least on a consistent basis.
All this is to day my definition of true science is to take a quantifiable idea or concept, test it with some sort of control, and get results that are reproducible. Pseudoscience is taking an unquantifiable idea or concept, getting results and not being able to reproduce it. Otherwise in my mind pseudoscience is doing one experiment, getting one result and doing the exact same experiment again and getting completely different results.
My dumb attempt at an answer.
Lots of good stuff in there. Thanks for bringing your experiences as a biochemist to the table.