Is a psedoscientist someone who is too eager to believe, someone who is too eager to dismiss, or both?

Both IMO.

its really just someone who jumps on any idea that goes against the mainstream and doesn't let go even if there is an extreme lack of evidence that the hypothesis is true.

well, to be Verbose, it`s someone that fails to employ propper Scientific Method, and/or misinterprets Empirical evidence in a way that serves their own predisposition/bias.

its really just someone who jumps on any idea that goes against the mainstream and doesn't let go even if there is an extreme lack of evidence that the hypothesis is true.

Not really, an absolute belief in something completely mainstream that isn't justified using the scientific method would still be pseudoscience.

i suppose but its more common for things against the mainstream(well, at least the really nutty ones) the ones that stick to mainstream tend to be the older generation who spent their lives working i out(like einstein and QM(

If I may, "A Pseudoscientist is one who adjusts or ignores data (or the lack of data) in the light of their pet theory rather that adjusting the theory to suit the data."

 

I believe that would cover pseudos in either alternative or mainstream science.

A pseudoscientist is one who has allowed their fascination with science (and the implications and findings of science) to overcome any desire to apply proper scientific process to their thinking. It will nearly always be attributable to a) insufficient education, or b) willfull disregard for the process.

I disagree with point A totaly, it`s Not an education thing at all, Science is about exploration, some of the best Scientific (in the true sense) Minds are those of Children.

 

How are they "Well Educated"?

 

yet they take nothing for granted (even simple things), want to explore Everything, and demonstrate an unbiased willingness to LEARN!

 

I have little in the way of formal education also, and often see things more simply than most, I`m hardly a "Crack pot" though.

 

else you may say that Everyone is a crack pot scientist that attends the 1`st day in Chem class or Physics etc...

I disagree with point A totaly, it`s Not an education thing at all, Science is about exploration, some of the best Scientific (in the true sense) Minds are those of Children.

 

Yes, but without sufficient education in the subject area, your ideas or experiments might be invalid because of some factor you don't know.

 

To use my own field, someone might come up with very unusual results when studying byssus retractor muscles in bivalve mollusks. They might think that these results question the sliding-filament model of muscles, when in actuality we already know that these particular muscles have a 'catch' system unique to them, and thus cannot be generalized to other muscles.

 

Again, to use an example from biology, if you do a study comparing the quantitative measurements of some trait in many animals, the uneducated will simply use normal statistics. However, normal statistics don't work for comparative biology because the data points (species) are not independent; they're all related, and with varying closeness. As such, you need to employ a very specific procedure in order to generate meaningful results from your data.

 

You're right that lack of formal education alone doesn't make one a crackpot, but it *can* contribute to crackpottery, since they lack the proper context and conceptual/procedural tools to evaluate things.

 

Mokele

I disagree with point A totaly, it`s Not an education thing at all, Science is about exploration, some of the best Scientific (in the true sense) Minds are those of Children.

You have fallen into a logical fallacy.

 

I have stated that some of those who practice pseudoscience will do so because of a lack of education.

I have not stated that all those who lack an education will be predisposed to practice pseudoscience.

 

I am surprised that you cannot see in the form and content of posts by certain individuals on this forum (individuals who I think we could agree are practising pseudoscience) clear evidence that they are doing so in part because they lack an education in the sciences.

Is a pseudoscientist someone who is too eager to believe...

 

What if, just for the sake of debate, string theory is pseudoscience?

 

What if, just for the sake of debate, string theory is pseudoscience?

 

I don't really think so, if only because its proponents haven't really claimed to have proven anything, and are in fact waiting on normal scientific methods for that. As such, it's not fallacious, just speculative, and acknowledged as speculative. On the other hand, you could easily take it into the realm of pseudoscience, and I suspect many have...

From the posts so far, education seems to be the 'plus' for string theory---since the scientific process seems not to be there.

its proponents haven't really claimed to have proven anything, and are in fact waiting on normal scientific methods for that. As such, it's not fallacious, just speculative, and acknowledged as speculative.

 

i always thought that was what pseuoscience is: an inability to perform normal scientific methods, due to the nature of the subject.

and should thus always be treated as speculative, or a hypothesis waiting for evidence to appear.

 

if it is the case that the difference between pseudoscience and science is in the performer - whether the person is speculative or biased-ly assertive - then we can not rightly label certain subjects as pseudoscience, as there is a way to make anything speculative, and there is a way to make anything biased.

From the posts so far, education seems to be the 'plus' for string theory---since the scientific process seems not to be there.

 

I don´t know much about string theory but I am pretty sure that a significant share of string research goes into checking a proposed scenario for what observations it describes and ruling out models which give incorrect (non-compatible with nature) predictions.

if it is the case that the difference between pseudoscience and science is in the performer - whether the person is speculative or biased-ly assertive - then we can not rightly label certain subjects as pseudoscience, as there is a way to make anything speculative, and there is a way to make anything biased.

 

 

I don't know about "anything," but there is some truth to that. It is possible to rationally investigate "alien abductions" without being pseudoscientific. However, if you conclude they're real, then you might want to examine your methods...

Nothing like deciding the answer before you investigate the problem, is there?

A pseudoscientist is quick to write an internet blog on his "theories", complete with twirly, animated GIFs and multiple copyright statements.

 

A pseudoscientist is quick to post his "theories" on not-quite-professional web sites such as SFN (we have some professionals here, but they discuss the serious stuff elsewhere).

 

A pseudoscientist does not post his "theories" on web sites where multiple professionals who could rip those "theories" to shreds hang out.

 

Jeesh. Edit here:

 

A pseudoscientist is might be well-versed in HTML and Word but does not know how to use LaTeX.

I dont think religion can be deducted into science through pseudoscience...

The prefix "pseudo" says it all