Eise Posted March 1, 2015 Share Posted March 1, 2015 Most 'good' pseudoscience tries to hide as science, they have methodology, a proposed mechanism, they have hypotheses etc. Astrology does not even try to be a science. Any attempt at a mechanism via gravity, say, is quickly shot down. So what are good examples of real pseudosciences? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whiskers Posted March 1, 2015 Share Posted March 1, 2015 Most 'good' pseudoscience tries to hide as science, they have methodology, a proposed mechanism, they have hypotheses etc. Astrology does not even try to be a science. Any attempt at a mechanism via gravity, say, is quickly shot down. Most (all?) pseudoscience has come into existence since the beginning of the scientific method, and copies it, attempting to gain the legitimacy of scientific methods and results. Astrology is very different. It is based upon traditions (and some would say observations) which predate science. It therefore does not need to presume to have a specific scienc-y-sounding mechanism. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eise Posted March 2, 2015 Author Share Posted March 2, 2015 Most (all?) pseudoscience has come into existence since the beginning of the scientific method, and copies it, attempting to gain the legitimacy of scientific methods and results. Many pseudo-sciences (like astrology and alchemy) started as a proto-science, and as far as they are still existing (I am not aware of present day alchemy) they are pseudo-sciences now, claiming knowledge they simply do not have. Homoeopathy might be an example of what you mean: Hahnemann made empirical observations. They were of course worthless from a scientific point of view. So one cannot speak of 'copying the scientific method'. If one copies the scientific method, then one is really trying to do science. In fact homoeopathy is faking the scientific method. Astrology is very different. It is based upon traditions (and some would say observations) which predate science. It therefore does not need to presume to have a specific scienc-y-sounding mechanism. If astrology wants to be a body of knowledge, then it needs the scientific method. But we know what happens when we use the scientific method in astrology: nothing is left. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajb Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 So what are good examples of real pseudosciences? Quantum Mysticism could be a good example. It is a bizarre mix of physics in the form of quantum mechanics and spiritualism. Some of the introductions to the subject that I have read contain just enough physics words and enough of a grain of truth about quantum mechanics to start to sound believable to people not educated in science. I even read one that talked about Kaluza-Klein theory and the idea that these extra dimensions are 'super'; the term 'supermanifold' is even used. A quick google will tell you that KK-theory is part of physics, so are extra dimensions and we have supermanifolds. However this guy was talking sh*t. By super he meant 'supernatural' and not Z_{2}-graded! So again, kind of a mix of established idea and key words mixed together just to bamboozle people into thinking there is some credibility here. Astrology does not quite seem like that, there maybe a little astronomy involved but it all seems more based on archaic beliefs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 I think "copying the scientific method" means putting on a facade of the method, but also failing to apply the proper rigor or otherwise engaging in some fallacious activity, like cherry-picking results or appeal to ignorance. So gathering data, so one can say "Look, I have data! It's science" but the work is shoddy, and ignores investigations that disagree. Intelligent design, ESP, ghosts, alien sightings, etc. There are "ghost hunters" that take audio readings from a "haunted" site, and filter it in different ways until they have some spooky sounds. But since they started with noise they have a bunch of different frequency components, you can extract some arbitrary "signal" from it. Combined with our own natural tendency to see patterns and a dash of appeal to ignorance, you get "ghost noises" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acme Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 So what are good examples of real pseudosciences? Hollow Earth Theory Hydro-Plate Theory Phrenology Polygraphy 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 I think that points to some pseudoscience being science that has been falsified, and yet some people still believe it works. OTOH, how many people actually still think phrenology is a thing? (And I think polygraphs are a special case of influence and power, where it's used as leverage, even though everyone knows it doesn't actually work) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acme Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 I think that points to some pseudoscience being science that has been falsified, and yet some people still believe it works. OTOH, how many people actually still think phrenology is a thing? (And I think polygraphs are a special case of influence and power, where it's used as leverage, even though everyone knows it doesn't actually work) Well, I was giving a simple answer to a simple question and I'm not much for getting into word wrangling. I'll close with a paraphrase. I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description "pseudo-science", and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so, but I know it when I see it. source Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 Well, I was giving a simple answer to a simple question and I'm not much for getting into word wrangling. I wasn't disagreeing. Phrenology may not be popular these days, but it certainly used to be more so, and is/was definitely pseudoscience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acme Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 I wasn't disagreeing. Phrenology may not be popular these days, but it certainly used to be more so, and is/was definitely pseudoscience. No worries. My numerologist said I would misunderstand things today. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eise Posted March 3, 2015 Author Share Posted March 3, 2015 Hollow Earth Theory Hydro-Plate Theory Phrenology Polygraphy That is a great list, but why are these pseudo science and astrology isn't? (You see Swansont, I am still figuring out why astrology would not be a pseudo science.) I think "copying the scientific method" means putting on a facade of the method, but also failing to apply the proper rigor or otherwise engaging in some fallacious activity, like cherry-picking results or appeal to ignorance. So gathering data, so one can say "Look, I have data! It's science" but the work is shoddy, and ignores investigations that disagree. Intelligent design, ESP, ghosts, alien sightings, etc. Yeah, but is exactly, what I would say, is not copying, but faking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 That is a great list, but why are these pseudo science and astrology isn't? (You see Swansont, I am still figuring out why astrology would not be a pseudo science.) (edit) I'm not claiming that it isn't. (Other than the observation that some promote it purely as mysticism) I think the point of others is just that — some proponents don't even bother to try and dress it up as science. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eise Posted March 3, 2015 Author Share Posted March 3, 2015 Quantum Mysticism could be a good example. It is a bizarre mix of physics in the form of quantum mechanics and spiritualism. Some of the introductions to the subject that I have read contain just enough physics words and enough of a grain of truth about quantum mechanics to start to sound believable to people not educated in science. But astrology has also one scientific leg: the positions of the planets and the stars. Why don't you think that (Wikipedia): Pseudoscience is a claim, belief or practice which is falsely presented as scientific, but does not adhere to a valid scientific method, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status does not fit to astrology? Who is claiming that it isn't? (Other than the observation that some promote it purely as mysticism?) AJB. It doesn't even count as pseudo-science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 But astrology has also one scientific leg: the positions of the planets and the stars. Why don't you think that (Wikipedia): does not fit to astrology? AJB. It doesn't even count as pseudo-science. Your quoted definition says "falsely presented as scientific". If it's not presented as being scientific, it doesn't count. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eise Posted March 3, 2015 Author Share Posted March 3, 2015 Your quoted definition says "falsely presented as scientific". If it's not presented as being scientific, it doesn't count. ??? Wikipedia Astrology consists of several pseudoscientific systems of divination based on the premise that there is a relationship between astronomical phenomena and events in the human world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 ??? Wikipedia (<sigh>, these dots should be easy to connect) ajb's point was that some don't even try to present it as being scientific. How about addressing that argument? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajb Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 ajb's point was that some don't even try to present it as being scientific. Not that I know a lot about astrology, but little of what I have observed even tries to be scientific. Thus, in my opinion it is not really pseudoscience but an archaic belief system than has has some methodology attached, just like any archaic belief system. Others may disagree, but I think this is really a point of definition rather than a true opposition of opinions. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eise Posted March 3, 2015 Author Share Posted March 3, 2015 (edited) Others may disagree, but I think this is really a point of definition rather than a true opposition of opinions. Yeah, that is true. But I think that every discipline that claims to have, or be, valid and objective knowledge earns to be called pseudo science (well, of course if it is not really science). (<sigh>, these dots should be easy to connect) ajb's point was that some don't even try to present it as being scientific. How about addressing that argument? Well, if it is not claimed as scientific, then it is not claimed to be valid and objective knowledge. How is that with those 'some persons'? What is their claim that astrology is? Edited March 3, 2015 by Eise Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acme Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 Hollow Earth Theory Hydro-Plate Theory Phrenology Polygraphy That is a great list, but why are these pseudo science and astrology isn't?... To be clear, I do consider astrology a pseudoscience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimreepr Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 To be clear, I do consider astrology a pseudoscience. It is for those who try to defend it with pseudo-science otherwise it seems more like a religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acme Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 It is for those who try to defend it with pseudo-science otherwise it seems more like a religion. A turd by any other name would smell as sweet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimreepr Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 Compelling imagery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ten oz Posted March 7, 2015 Share Posted March 7, 2015 In my opinion astrology is more akin to religion than science. Astrology as a discipline deals most directly with humans spiritually. There is not a defined mechanism for how universal alignment accomplishes its influence. Much like religions do not seek to explain how god creates. Rather they just state that god does. No scientific endeavors or goals are practiced. The only science involved is the technology used to observe and astrology is not credited as being responsible for the invention of that technology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MigL Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 In my opinion the 'theories' that Acme posted are not pseudo-sciences, but failed scientific theories. They were 'established' using methodology which has since been shown to be invalid or used incomplete information/data. They are equivalent to the pre-Rutheford, raisin-pudding model of the atom, the Ptolomaic solar system, the aether, etc. The fact that some people have developed a cultish belief system around them is just sad. Astrology and alchemy on the other hand, would qualify in my opinion. It is very easy to imagine how someone who is ignorant of science and the scientific method, could convince themselves that the position of the stars and planets could influence his/her life. Or, not knowing any nuclear chemistry/physics and the reason for differences between elements, may think that a simple electro-chemical process could convert one into another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Angel Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 (edited) In my opinion the 'theories' that Acme posted are not pseudo-sciences, but failed scientific theories. They were 'established' using methodology which has since been shown to be invalid or used incomplete information/data. They are equivalent to the pre-Rutheford, raisin-pudding model of the atom, the Ptolomaic solar system, the aether, etc. The fact that some people have developed a cultish belief system around them is just sad. Research into "Cold Fusion" has been termed by some to be an example of "pathologic science".See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion Edited March 18, 2015 by Bill Angel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now