[sunspot]

Quote

It is not the "facts" which make science science, but rather, the method by which those facts were derived. So long as you have developed a theory and can test hypotheses of the theory, it is science.

I guess I'm knit picking, but according to this definition a good theory not supported with the scientific method is pseudo-science and a bad theory supported with the scientific method is still science? The problem with this orientation is that if one wished to prevent quantum change in science, all one would have to do is make the resources that are needed to become science unavailable so that new ideas remain psuedo-science.

For example, when Einstein began his theoretical work, it was probably considered pseudo-science by the science of the day. He had to support himself apart from science until he was able to provide a strong enough position. If his science had required physical resources that he could not provide with a clerk's salary, his ideas may have never reached the subjective level considered science.

Maybe the point I am making is that pseudo-science can benefit by being nurtured to its logical conclusion, before subjective judgement is passed. The criterion of resources is often a self forfilling prophesy that allows even bad theory to be called science.

[bascule]

There was a pretty cool article published on this today:

http://chronicle.com...21/21b02001.htm

1. The discoverer pitches the claim directly to the media.
2. The discoverer says that a powerful establishment is trying to suppress his or her work.
3. The scientific effect involved is always at the very limit of detection.
4. Evidence for a discovery is anecdotal.
5. The discoverer says a belief is credible because it has endured for centuries.
6. The discoverer has worked in isolation.
7. The discoverer must propose new laws of nature to explain an observation.

[Severian]

Number 3 could be used to declare the Higgs boson as pseudoscience, and number 7 seems to attack the whole of modern particle physics!

Edit: My numbers are refering to the OP, not Bascule's post.

[bascule]

Severian said:

Edit: My numbers are refering to the OP, not Bascule's post.

Upon further inspection, it appears to be the same article. My bad :-(

[Callipygous]

if someone has a miracle invention, but has nothing to show you but the theory behind it, no actual pictures, much less video of it performing its miracle function, its a load of crap.

most free energy devices fit this description. ive yet to see more than a sketch of one, and have never seen one producing its free energy.

[Zanket]

Tom Mattson said:

Here is what makes a theory "scientific".
...
2. It must be valid.
That is, its claims must be correctly derived via logic and, if applicable, mathematics.
...
Hypothesis 1a: I have a rock that keeps tigers away from my home.
...
This theory is both consistent and valid, but only trivially so because it has only one prediction!

How can the theory be valid according to your rules when it violates your rule #2? What is the derivation for this theory?

A theory need not be derived. For example, Einstein invented his field equations; he didn't derive them. And theories cannot be known to be valid.

bascule said:

There was a pretty cool article published on this today:

http://chronicle.com...21/21b02001.htm

1. The discoverer pitches the claim directly to the media.
2. The discoverer says that a powerful establishment is trying to suppress his or her work.
3. The scientific effect involved is always at the very limit of detection.
4. Evidence for a discovery is anecdotal.
5. The discoverer says a belief is credible because it has endured for centuries.
6. The discoverer has worked in isolation.
7. The discoverer must propose new laws of nature to explain an observation.

Points #3, 6, and 7, if only because they applied to Einstein, make a strong case for the claim in #2.

[swansont]

Zanket said:

Points #3, 6, and 7, if only because they applied to Einstein, make a strong case for the claim in #2.

How's that? What effect was at the very limit of detection? Einstein published — how is that working in isolation? Einstein did not propose new laws to explain observations. He correctly derived new laws that predicted behavior. These were tested, and confirmed.

Pseudoscience is almost always free of mathematics, so that the predictions are very vague, and thus the proponent can't be easily nailed down into a situation where handwaving can't cover up the shortcomings. But if you make specific predictions, you can be shown to be wrong. The theory may be incorrect, but it's still science.

[Zanket]

swansont said:

How's that? What effect was at the very limit of detection? Einstein published — how is that working in isolation? Einstein did not propose new laws to explain observations. He correctly derived new laws that predicted behavior. These were tested, and confirmed.

SR was initially beyond the limit of detection. It wasn't confirmed until years later. "Worked in isolation" does not mean "never published". He did not derive the postulate that the speed of light is invariant; he invented it. He proposed a new law of nature.

[Tom Mattson]

Wow, this is a blast from the past.

Zanket said:

How can the theory be valid according to your rules when it violates your rule #2? What is the derivation for this theory?

It doesn't violate rule #2. The lone premise (call it P) is also a prediction, so the trivial derivation "P, therefore P", while valid, is also trivial.

Quote

A theory need not be derived. For example, Einstein invented his field equations; he didn't derive them.

Certainly, the premises of a theory need not be derived. It's the subsequent predictions that I was talking about.

Quote

And theories cannot be known to be valid.

They can be known to be logically valid, which is the type of validity I was talking about.

[Zanket]

Tom Mattson said:

Certainly, the premises of a theory need not be derived. It's the subsequent predictions that I was talking about.

Then I would change the description of #2 to "That is, its predictions must be derivable via logic and, if applicable, mathematics". Otherwise people might get the mistaken impression that the premises need be derived. I'd say that well over 90% of people on these forums think that a theory's predictive equations must be derived.

Quote

They can be known to be logically valid, which is the type of validity I was talking about.

An illogical theory (e.g. one that is self-inconsistent) can make predictions that are derivable via logic and, if applicable, mathematics. I think you need a separate point that says the theory must be logical.

[swansont]

Zanket said:

SR was initially beyond the limit of detection. It wasn't confirmed until years later. "Worked in isolation" does not mean "never published". He did not derive the postulate that the speed of light is invariant; he invented it. He proposed a new law of nature.

SR wasn't an explanation of an observed phenomenon, it was a prediction. Publication requires peer-review, which is feedback, and Einstein worked at a university, for crying out loud. He collaborated. The constancy of the speed of light comes from Maxwell's equations. It was not actually new, it's just that nobody had looked at the application to mechanical systems before.

[Tom Mattson]

[quote name='Zanket']Then I would change the description of #2 to "That is, its predictions must be derivable via logic and, if applicable, mathematics". Otherwise people might get the mistaken impression that the premises need be derived.
[quote]

OK, change "claim" to "prediction" if you like. I don't see a difference, but whatever.

[quote]
I'd say that well over 90% of people on these forums think that a theory's predictive equations must be derived.
[/quote]

Well, if that's true then that's pretty bad. It should be common knowledge that a theory has to start with someone making a conjecture that has empirical content.

[quote]
An illogical theory (e.g. one that is self-inconsistent) can make predictions that are derivable via logic and, if applicable, mathematics. I think you need a separate point that says the theory must be logical.[/QUOTE]

I did make that a separate point. It's #1 on the list.

[quote=Tom Mattson]
1. It must be consistent.
That is, for no statement X should it be possible to deduce both X and NOT X from the axioms of the theory.
[/quote]

[Zanket]

swansont said:

SR wasn't an explanation of an observed phenomenon, it was a prediction. Publication requires peer-review, which is feedback, and Einstein worked at a university, for crying out loud. He collaborated. The constancy of the speed of light comes from Maxwell's equations. It was not actually new, it's just that nobody had looked at the application to mechanical systems before.

Einstein did not work at a university when he wrote his 1905 "miracle year" papers. He worked as a patent clerk then. He was the only author. He collaborated only with a friend he bounced ideas off of. He didn't get a job at a university until later; his 1905 papers helped him get that job.

Treating the act of submitting a paper for peer review as not working in isolation is ridiculous IMO. We’d never see pseudoscience in that case, because “worked in isolation” would mean that the person never showed it to anybody. But “worked in isolation” means exactly what the dictionary says it does, and Einstein did exactly that. So did Dirac and Newton to a large degree.

Einstein did propose a new law of nature with his postulate that the speed of light is invariant. It doesn't matter if it was obvious from pre-existing sources. Einstein proposed a new law of nature with his equivalence principle as well.

Tom Mattson said:

I did make that a separate point. It's #1 on the list.

So you did. My bad, sorry.

[swansont]

Zanket said:

Treating the act of submitting a paper for peer review as not working in isolation is ridiculous IMO. We’d never see pseudoscience in that case, because “worked in isolation” would mean that the person never showed it to anybody.

No, it means they would never modify their results based on feedback from people who know what they're talking about. Like they'd have a website, or just post crap to bulletin boards, proudly proclaiming their grand discoveries, and ignoring all who disagree. Oh, wait ...

Anyway, since Dr. Park actually clarified what he meant in his article "Scientific breakthroughs nowadays are almost always syntheses of the work of many scientists" (emphasis added) it's hard to defend applying this to science done 100+ years ago, when there were a lot more opportunities for even amateurs to make significant contributions in many areas.

[Zanket]

swansont said:

No, it means they would never modify their results based on feedback from people who know what they're talking about. Like they'd have a website, or just post crap to bulletin boards, proudly proclaiming their grand discoveries, and ignoring all who disagree. Oh, wait ...

Sorry, I’m going to have to go with the dictionary on this one. I’d like to see the proof that a scientific claim posted on a website is invalid.

Quote

Anyway, since Dr. Park actually clarified what he meant in his article "Scientific breakthroughs nowadays are almost always syntheses of the work of many scientists" (emphasis added) it's hard to defend applying this to science done 100+ years ago, when there were a lot more opportunities for even amateurs to make significant contributions in many areas.

It’s hard to defend applying this nowadays. Scientific breakthroughs nowadays are usually the work of men, so I guess we should suspect all women’s work as pseudoscience. Dr. Park is clearly trying to throw the babies out with the bathwater with his ironically pseudoscientific list. Tom Mattson’s list above is scientific—it’s the one that should be favored by this site.

[swansont]

Zanket said:

I’d like to see the proof that a scientific claim posted on a website is invalid.

Why would you think one existed? It's an observation, not a physical law. Nothing is there to prevent valid science from going that route, yet it never seems to. Do you have any counter-examples?

[Zanket]

A counter-example is here or here. Rather than those who disagree being ignored, they have been soundly refuted. Nevertheless it must be pseudoscience. We don’t need science to tell us what pseudoscience is nowadays. We need only look at the odds, at least at this site.

[swansont]

Ah, silly me. I should have seen that one coming. And yet, I think I covered this a few posts back.

[Zanket]

Yes, you amply showed that you are unscientific.

[swansont]

Do you do stand-up, too?