Thread: Science vs Pseudoscience

Originally Posted by Seraphim

The common understanding of what a black hole is (a super dense gravitational well) would fit the observable evidence.

But wouldn't also a physical hole in space? Not a collapsed star, but a big gaping hole in the barrier of our universe? Like when you pull the plug on a tub of water, everything swirls down the drain, it even has the same swirl that galaxies have, which is further indirect evidence of my newly hatched theory. So, I am launching my new thesis: NO black holes, they are hole holes...and we're all going down the drain.

See how easy psuedo-science is?

I did state quite clearly that I myself was not convinced that back holes exist, so I don't disagree that there may be more than one explanation for indirect evidence. I'm simply saying that I don't think indirect evidence should be discounted or given less consideration simply because it is indirect.

Also, just because a theory seems wild or outlandish does not mean that it is not scientific. If you had solid evidence to support your hole in space statement, a theory describing holes and space and how they should behave, and testable predictions that were found to be correct, you would have a scientific theory (as we've defined science here thus far).

There's also something to be said for how well a new conclusion fits with the rest of the thoroughly tested conclusions we already have.

Say I found a hole in my backyard that seemed impossibly deep. No matter what I tossed into it, I couldn't hear anything hit the bottom. No rope I dropped into it ever came back dirty, either. I could draw a number of conclusions from these experiments:

1) this hole is not really so deep, but there is a portal at the bottom that leads to another place, like a wormhole

2) there are gnomes at the bottom who are softly catching the rocks and coiling the ropes in such a manner as to keep them clean

3) the earth at the bottom of the hole is soft, so I can't hear the rocks hit, and my rope just isn't long enough

You could surely draw a huge number of other conclusions, as well. Looking at the three listed above, it's fairly clear that only one of them has much of a chance of being true. Why? Because the others would fly in the face of what we know from physics, zoology, geology, etc.

In that sense, I view the accumulated knowledge we've already gained as a sort of spiderweb. As time goes by, we make the web more and more detailed, but its basic structure doesn't change a whole lot. Anything new that we discover might rock the boat in a certain field, occasionally replacing a whole strand or two in the metaphorical spiderweb, but it isn't likely to simultaneously invalidate previous findings from multiple other fields. If anything, more often than not, it would probably reveal the way data from those other fields fits together in ways we hadn't thought of yet.

Could multiple fields be turned on their heads at once? Sure, but I think it happens less often as we discover more and the fields get increasingly specialized. Incidentally, this is how I intuitively judge whether or not certain claims are bogus. If someone tells me that carrying around a certain crystal can cure my cold, I don't take it seriously for a second (beyond any placebo effect), because it would contradict much of what we've come to accept as true from studying immunology, pathology, physics, etc. The more such a claim would necessitate re-weaving the entire web of interconnected knowledge we have, the less likely I am to believe it (and the more likely I am to label such things as baloney, or pseudoscience).

Sorry if any of this is off-topic. Just felt like rambling with my morning coffee.

Originally Posted by holli4pirating

I did state quite clearly that I myself was not convinced that back holes exist, so I don't disagree that there may be more than one explanation for indirect evidence. I'm simply saying that I don't think indirect evidence should be discounted or given less consideration simply because it is indirect.

Also, just because a theory seems wild or outlandish does not mean that it is not scientific. If you had solid evidence to support your hole in space statement, a theory describing holes and space and how they should behave, and testable predictions that were found to be correct, you would have a scientific theory (as we've defined science here thus far).

Holli4, I wasn't arguing with you on the subject, but rather just trying to make up an example for the sake of furthering the discussion.

Let me say this much: just because a statement is made by a scientist, that does not make it scientific.

I would say that wild outlandish statements that are not well supported are not scientifically valid.

My hole in space theory uses the observable swirl of water down the drain to show that it is exactly the same dynamic observable in galactic swirling to support my theory.

Indirect evidence certainly should be given less consideration.

Originally Posted by northpaw

Sorry if any of this is off-topic. Just felt like rambling with my morning coffee.

Lots of great stuff in there, especially about the need for theories to fit together. And about the rare upturning of fields. Indeed, what you're written is quite reminiscent of Kuhn's discussions of paradigms and normal science and paradigm shifts.

Originally Posted by ndw76

Psudoscience is a thrilling fictional novel and science is a well written but not as exciting journal.

Often they appear the other way around...

Originally Posted by Seraphim

Indirect evidence certainly should be given less consideration.

I'm curious as to why you say this. I think it would be best if we define indirect evidence before proceeding.

This seems relevant.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u34Bh...layer_embedded