Jump to content
fafalone

Spotting Pseudoscience

Recommended Posts

24 minutes ago, Anonymous Participant said:

None. I just have a more accurate and rational definition than it rides the bandwagon

That is a pathetic answer given that you said:

36 minutes ago, Anonymous Participant said:

From my perspective I can see a lot of what mainstream refers to a legitimate science is indeed pseudoscience , and a alot of what it refers to as pseudoscience is legitimate science. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Anonymous Participant said:

I think we all need to realize that an opinion does not qualify something as pseudoscience or legitimate science, nor does a bandwagon fallacy.. From my perspective I can see a lot of what mainstream refers to a legitimate science is indeed pseudoscience , and a alot of what it refers to as pseudoscience is legitimate science. The title fo this thread is how to spot pseudoscience and I think one of the easiest ways to detect what is likley pseudoscience is if it A) forces a preconceived unproved belief as a limitation to it's conclusions, or B) contradicts logic and proved and accepted laws of science.

Please provide some evidence that what mainstream science as legitimate science is really pseudoscience. A: You can't other then to make bland religiously ID driven statements.

Please provide evidence  of what is viewed as pseudoscience is really science> A: You can't. Paranormal and Supernatural claims, beliefs, and myths are just that....There is no real evidence for any of it.

But please, do not get confused with what a scientific theory is: ie the best explanation at that time, based on empirical evidence. Obviously, as new evidence may come to light, as new further and clearer observations become evident, theories may be modified, changed or even scrapped. That's science...that's why it is the best explanation and most logical conclusions we can have.

Quote

For instance the big bang theory is clearly pseudoscience because it ignores fundamental proved laws of science and defies logic and conventional wisdom. Explosions don't create almost infinitely complex systems, they disrupt an destroy them, and if you're going to use it as an explanation of the origin of the universe you'd better realize unless you explain how the singularity came into existence and why it "chose" to explode you have actually explained nothign.. The big bang theory doesn't pass the basic smell test in science because it is quite bluntly an attempt to explain the existence of the universe within the constraints of an irrational religious belief, that there is no intelligent order int he universe and that complex intelligently ordered things can come into existence without intelligent intervention. They cannot..

That quote above is just more of your unsupported claims, based on your obvious agenda. 

Let me inform you of a few facts.

[1] A scientific theory [as I have already stated] is never really proven. It is an explanation of a particular situation, based on observational and experimental evidence, and may change over time as technology allows us to gain more accurate experiments and make better and further observations. Scientific theories do though grow in certainty over time as they continue to make successful predictions and match new observations...eg: GR.

[2] No scientific theory is all encompassing. Even GR has its zones of applicability, outside of which it is fails. eg: The Planck/quantum level.

[3] In regards to your nonsensical rantings In the above "quote" (a) The BB in scientific circles is not thought of as an explosion as is normally accepted definition of an explosion...it is quite simply an evolution of space and time from 10-43 seconds after T. (b) We do not as yet no if the universe is infinite or finite. (c) Science in general do not accept the Singularity at either the BB or BHs as a physical entity, rather a mathematical construct at which our models fail, ie the quantum/Planck level. (d) We do not know how or why the BB and the evolution of our universe/spacetime was initiated as yet...a QGT may reveal that in the future.(e) we have absolutely no evidence, zero, zilch of any hint or smell of any ID. Keep in mind that at one time, hindered by mythical ID beliefs,  they also believed that the Earth was the center of the universe. You do know that is incorrect, right? In essence it is dumb, I mean really dumb, considering how science has evolved, considering how science has offered empirical evidence to explain the universe, considering how science has pushed any need for any deity into near oblivion, to then automatically and naively invoke any form of ID in place of where science as yet does not have any explanations. This "God of the gaps" strategy  has been shown to be invalid time and time again.

To now invalidate your "quoted"claims re the BB as pseudoscience:

Evidence for the BB:

[1]Nucleosynthesis and abundance of the lighter elements (hydrogen and helium)

[2] Large scale Galactic structure.

[3]Observed expansion of the universe/spacetime.

[4] The observed CMBR or relic heat from the BB.

 

In essence then, and to put it quite bluntly, to invoke any pseudscientific and/or religious belief to explain the universe around us, is no more then and indication of some obsessive anti science agenda and/or delusions of grandeur, and then to claim that the experts with their access to 'scopes and a myriad of other state of the art equipment and the data they present, are wrong is plainly just so much hot air. On the religious side of the coin, some people are rather put out by the fact that the universe does not exist for them or indeed cares for them in any way and prefer to stay in their comfort zone, much the same way as a child not wanting to let go of his/her teddy bear.

Edited by beecee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice post, but it's a shame you went to the effort, considering that AP had been suspended before we posted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, DrKrettin said:

Nice post, but it's a shame you went to the effort, considering that AP had been suspended before we posted.

It has value in that anyone reading the thread who is "tempted" by some of AP's arguments can see them clinically demolished by just such a post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
!

Moderator Note

Any discussion of the particulars of any theory or conjecture should take place in a separate thread

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, DrKrettin said:

Nice post, but it's a shame you went to the effort, considering that AP had been suspended before we posted.

:) That's OK...he had me on ignore anyway...at least that's what he claimed. What amazes me with these characters, is while they are so certain that mainstream is wrong, and that they and they alone have the gifted insight into the "truth", they also seem rather delusional in that claiming what they do on this or any science forum, will change anything. While forums are great for discussing and debating, they are not really a part of any academia or post or scientific methodology where they are professionally able to change the mainstream view and show the vast majority that is the mainstream, the supposed error of their ways. A task they will never and are incapable of achieving via the scientific method.

Edited by beecee

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

×
×
  • 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.