Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
fafalone

Pseudoscience for the Responsible [Debate]

Recommended Posts

It seems that pseudoscience, while often colourful, sometimes stimulating and - on occasion - entertaining, suffers from shortcomings which are dependent on the wielder of the hypothesis under scrutiny.

 

Unlike conventional scientific theory, which is based upon a continually progressing and narrowing identification of event-level observations that can be demonstrated and explained via the scientific method, there is no unilateral standard within pseudoscience that restricts any one individual or group of individuals to a single approach to any given problem.

 

Without such control, it is only a matter of time before any pseudoscience hypothesis spins wildly out of control. I cite most of the threads in this forum as evidence.

 

Additionally, it is not always possible to move from Step 1: Observation & Hypothesis, to Step 3: Theory.

The reason for this is that without specific protocols and the will to apply them to their fullest extent, anyone wishing to propound a pseudoscientific idea is more likely to rely on hyperbole, flights of the imagination and 'joining the dots' to mould the observations into a shape that fits with a predetermined conclusion. As we have seen many times over this sort of approach does not last long.

 

So where to go from here? The aspiring pseudoscientists among us (Hi Zarkov) need some flashcards methinks.

 

 

  1. The failure of an individual to accept, understand or believe a widely accepted theorem or principle does not make that theorem or principle incorrect. As such, it cannot be cast aside whenever convenient.
  2. Because of (1), where an established theorem or principle clashes with a pseudoscientific hypothesis, the observed effects upon which the theorem or principle are based should be explained in terms of the pseudo hypothesis.
  3. If (2) is not possible, the pseudo hypothesis must incorporate full proof as to why the theorem or principle is incorrect.
  4. When new information is presented of which the pseudoscientist was previously ignorant, and which contradicts any part of the hypothesis, the hypothesis should be reviewed rather than argued over.
  5. Dogma is no substitute for data.
  6. Attack is not the best form of defence. A good hypothesis should not need to be defended.
  7. Criticism is not necessarily cynicism.
  8. Passing off any hypothesis as fact, science or truth is nothing short of pure folly, regardless of whether or not the hypothesis is pseudoscientific.
  9. Playing the intellectual property card in order to refrain from posting evidence is not justifiable. All members' IP addresses are logged with every post, and associated with the username for which they have registered personal details.
  10. Finally, a word of caution to the Pseudoscience Lite masses. While striving to be different is an admirable quality, it is in no way a good reason to cast aside whichever scientifically established theories one can find outlandish alternatives to. There comes a point where it just gets silly (re: Nasca Lines thread. Yes, satire.)

 

Did I miss anything out?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I got a sticky thread?

 

In your face pseudoscience! :owned:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those are good guidlines.:cool2:

not everything even rates psuedoscience. :toilet:

This helps weed out bad presentations.:flame:

Sometimes ideas just need a little more thought:doh:

Thanks Sayonarra.

Just aman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's too hard to follow, and too much to read. The whole concept of pseudoscince is to make things easy by eliminating all that silly math stuff and everything. I cannot for the life of me understand where my socks disappear to, but I can certainly appreciate the sound and well accepted idea that socks are simplyclotheshanger larvae. No math needed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will just enjoy the looks on your faces when all the knocks return to your door, and you won't know what to say, when they ask, "Why didn't you know ?"

 

Time will show the truth >:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You mean like Jehovas Witnesses?:cool2:

I just tell them, "No thanks, I know the truth."

Just aman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bit like that Aman, until you answer the door and GOD is staring you in the face, He He :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

God likes me best.:cool2:

Just aman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Zarkov

Bit like that Aman, until you answer the door and GOD is staring you in the face, He He :)

Wow, you seem to have found the best answer to anything ever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My God's better than your God. I am condemned by so many Gods and forgiven or accepted by some. I pick the one that likes me best.

Just aman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Sayonara³

Writing something down does not make it true.

 

 

that's not what moses thought as GOD wrote 10 amendments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Adam

GOD wrote 10 amendments.

That's going to keep me going for the next week.

 

Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by fafalone

And where's the scientific evidence that happened?

 

and where's the scientific evidence that it didn't happen ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

 

:eek:

 

 

The arc of noah, well proved. Why would noah meeting GOD/ALIENS not happen ?????????????????????????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A picture of a rock formation in the shape of a boat does not prove it's Noah's Ark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heh i wouldn't be suprised if i went seeking information and found , THE 10 Comandments PLATES , FOUND AND CARBON DATED. but that's just waste of time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't be surprised if you failed to realise how little that helps your case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, the Ten Commandments weren't even true-or-false proposals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I've found the Ten Commandments. It took a bit of searching, they were in West Africa in the second Ark of the Covenant.

 

I've had a quick skim across them, and Adams correct. They are signed on the bottom by Gods own hand. I didn't have time to have a really good look as the temple guards were going to find me in a bit.

 

There were two odd things, one was that there were 12 commandments and the last two seemed to have been partially scrubbed away. The other thing is that ever since I read them, I appear to have a low level glow, and can now control the elements with the power of my mind.

 

Interesting that one of the 'lost' 2 commandments states in Hebrew 'Thou shalt not be a horses ass Adam'. Bit of a coincience, nes pa?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow this is a hilarious thread, I especially like hogslayer's comment and Adams first one (no really)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sayonara:

 

Thanks for that msg.

 

That's why I arrived here for the first time today; I am engaged in some philosophy/science/religion debates online, and it's really shocking how self-serving many arguments are, as though skewing methodology and discipline could produce....what? A "won" debate? How silly!

 

I'm just trying to ease in here (in the forum) and get the sense of things, and acquire some facts from time to time.

 

I'm doing some reading concerning science, whereas for most of my life I've avoided it. Methodology, as science presents it, looks to me like an Art, and that is something as beautiful as good logic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, there's a lot to be said for good methodology - whether it's a beautifully designed experimental method or a deliciously W3-compliant XML document... :D

 

Have a read of some of Zarkov and Adam's threads in this forum to see how horribly, horribly wrong "scientific expansion" can go... heh heh heh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.