Jump to content
fafalone

Spotting Pseudoscience

Recommended Posts

Numbered posts for staff differ from numbered posts for members, usually when something has been deleted (like spam). This can all be clarified with a link to the post which I'm quite sure swansont will gladly offer, if needed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Post 201 ?!?

 

Ok, I get it, you don't know the answer and want to drive me away from the simple question I posted (see #196). No problem, maybe someone else will answer. I'll wait for the answer and not engage in a meaningless dispute.

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/663-spotting-pseudoscience/?p=980663

 

"B - In Fizeau experiment the result derived from the existing theory (SR) is not identical with what Fizeau found"

 

(iNow is correct; hidden posts show up for me, so my numbering may be different. I apologize for not linking earlier)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, back to my question, what is the target for a new/alternative theory, what Fizeau found or exactly the SR result (the one with 1+v/cn below)?

 

Why do you think these are different?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I wrote above (3 times, or more), I need to know what result should be the target for my (or any) alternative (non-Lorentzian) theory for Fizeau experiment.

It needs to agree with the experiment. If it doesn't agree, it's wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It needs to agree with the experiment. If it doesn't agree, it's wrong.

 

Ok, thank you.

Edited by DanMP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"If we must change existing laws of nature or propose new laws to account for an observation, it is almost certainly wrong." - Quote

 

This part of the post means you have limited or quite possibly closed or clamped shut the idea of the current laws we have not ever being wrong.

What happens when you are presented with something that is correct and verifiable that adds to the laws or even requires a revision of what is known based on the exception to the rule found.

 

Yet, of course, this person would get a noble prize and change history yet he could get ignored due to the error of something having no president and people being unwilling to change their mind set on something.

 

It's almost akin to when people take on myths as fact some may not be true some may be half truths and some true yet the person hold on to it even if they are wrong. It is possible to be wrong with something that is considered fact when something valid brings new light to the issue at hand after all isn't that what inspiration and innovation are all about in science.


I believe an observation is not infallible for it has been said we do affect the outcome of experiments in quantum theory so then that can ring true elsewhere I believe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"If we must change existing laws of nature or propose new laws to account for an observation, it is almost certainly wrong." - Quote

 

This part of the post means you have limited or quite possibly closed or clamped shut the idea of the current laws we have not ever being wrong.

 

 

 

Almost certainly wrong ≠ always wrong

 

The odds that some random, self-trained person, working alone, has stumbled on new physics are incredibly small. How many times has that happened in the last 100 years?

 

Given the long odds, adopting the provisional premise that they are wrong is not unreasonable. What is much more likely is that they are unfamiliar with the mainstream science and relevant experimental results.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Almost certainly wrong ≠ always wrong

 

The odds that some random, self-trained person, working alone, has stumbled on new physics are incredibly small. How many times has that happened in the last 100 years?

 

Given the long odds, adopting the provisional premise that they are wrong is not unreasonable. What is much more likely is that they are unfamiliar with the mainstream science and relevant experimental results.

 

Which simply means that the burden of proof is on the person proposing the new physics - not the mainstream community. He has to show enough solidity to get people interested, and then if the idea is worthy it will take flight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Which simply means that the burden of proof is on the person proposing the new physics - not the mainstream community. He has to show enough solidity to get people interested, and then if the idea is worthy it will take flight.

Finally, A glimmer of hope in a harsh environment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Finally, A glimmer of hope in a harsh environment.

Why do you say "finally"

It's always been like that- because it has to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pseudoscience is not so easily spotted. Haeckel's drawings, for example, have been reproduced and claimed to validate the pseudoscience of"ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" up until the year 2000, despite the fact that one enterprising scientist challenged their authenticity the year they were first presented by Ernst Haeckel.

 

It is the same with evolution, of course. Hundreds of books, papers, and challenges to Darwinism have not dampened the enthusiasm of evolutionary biologists who seem intent on demanding some replacement before Darwin's speculations can be discarded. Science does not require any explanation, however, but only requires us to discard explanations or theories which fail, and the daunting and insuperable statistics of polypepide synthesis render Darwinian evolution hopelessly inadequate. There are over 10 to the 1,000th possible variations just for human hemoglobin, a number so unimaginably large that it dwarfs definitions of "impossible" by such notables as Richard Dawkins, who states that he defines "impossible" as 1 chance in 10^40th power.

 

Assembling 574 amino acids in a precise sequence, out of a possible choice of 20 different amino acids, precisely folded no less, includes the requirement that this particular polypeptide had some "selective advantage" over some previous form or compound. What was that previous form, exactly? And this process must be carried out for the thousands of proteins in the human body, many of which are considerably large than hemoglobin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pseudoscience is not so easily spotted. Haeckel's drawings, for example, have been reproduced and claimed to validate the pseudoscience of"ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" up until the year 2000, despite the fact that one enterprising scientist challenged their authenticity the year they were first presented by Ernst Haeckel.

 

It is the same with evolution, of course. Hundreds of books, papers, and challenges to Darwinism have not dampened the enthusiasm of evolutionary biologists who seem intent on demanding some replacement before Darwin's speculations can be discarded. Science does not require any explanation, however, but only requires us to discard explanations or theories which fail, and the daunting and insuperable statistics of polypepide synthesis render Darwinian evolution hopelessly inadequate. There are over 10 to the 1,000th possible variations just for human hemoglobin, a number so unimaginably large that it dwarfs definitions of "impossible" by such notables as Richard Dawkins, who states that he defines "impossible" as 1 chance in 10^40th power.

 

Assembling 574 amino acids in a precise sequence, out of a possible choice of 20 different amino acids, precisely folded no less, includes the requirement that this particular polypeptide had some "selective advantage" over some previous form or compound. What was that previous form, exactly? And this process must be carried out for the thousands of proteins in the human body, many of which are considerably large than hemoglobin.

Well for a start some of your own claims can be classed as pseudoscience at best.

But generally it can be recognised by the following points.

* Unscientific and unfamiliar science sounding words.

* Relying and repeating "hear say" and so called personal accounts...or relying on anecdotal evidence in the main.

* Ignoring and failing to accept well supported and evidenced based scientific fact/s.

* Claiming that which is unable to be shown to be false.

* Claims that scientific theories are not proof, and the often repeated phrase "prove it".

 

That and probably many more I suggest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

!

Moderator Note

We are not going to litigate evolution, or any other bit of science (or pseudoscience), in this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well for a start some of your own claims can be classed as pseudoscience at best.

But generally it can be recognised by the following points.

* Unscientific and unfamiliar science sounding words.

* Relying and repeating "hear say" and so called personal accounts...or relying on anecdotal evidence in the main.

* Ignoring and failing to accept well supported and evidenced based scientific fact/s.

* Claiming that which is unable to be shown to be false.

* Claims that scientific theories are not proof, and the often repeated phrase "prove it".

 

That and probably many more I suggest.

 

You obviously did not cite A SINGLE "unscientific and unfamiliar science sounding word." Not one.

You engage only in vague accusations without the slightest bit of specificity or evidence.

 

You misquoted me, misrepresented me, and show that you have no understanding of rational discourse, much less scientific acumen.

 

There is a Nigeria proverb: "A lion does not turn when a small dog barks." You will be the first to be added to an Ignore List, if this forum has one.

Many of your friends are sure to follow, as I have not the time nor the interest in responding to all the inane yapping that goes on here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You obviously did not cite A SINGLE "unscientific and unfamiliar science sounding word." Not one.

You engage only in vague accusations without the slightest bit of specificity or evidence.

 

You misquoted me, misrepresented me, and show that you have no understanding of rational discourse, much less scientific acumen.

 

There is a Nigeria proverb: "A lion does not turn when a small dog barks." You will be the first to be added to an Ignore List, if this forum has one.

Many of your friends are sure to follow, as I have not the time nor the interest in responding to all the inane yapping that goes on here.

Nothing vague in anything I have said, nor any misquotes, and most actually well documented in your so far 29 posts on this forum.

And of course whether you ignore me or not is really entirely up to you. I certainly though will continue to comment on pseudoscientific claims, religious propaganda, and anti science crusades that some like to carry out. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/7/2003 at 10:43 AM, fafalone said:

From http://chronicle.com/free/v49/i21/21b02001.htm

 

Something is probably bull if:

 

1. The discoverer pitches the claim directly to the media. The integrity of science rests on the willingness of scientists to expose new ideas and findings to the scrutiny of other scientists. Thus, scientists expect their colleagues to reveal new findings to them initially. An attempt to bypass peer review by taking a new result directly to the media, and thence to the public, suggests that the work is unlikely to stand up to close examination by other scientists.

 

One notorious example is the claim made in 1989 by two chemists from the University of Utah, B. Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann, that they had discovered cold fusion -- a way to produce nuclear fusion without expensive equipment. Scientists did not learn of the claim until they read reports of a news conference. Moreover, the announcement dealt largely with the economic potential of the discovery and was devoid of the sort of details that might have enabled other scientists to judge the strength of the claim or to repeat the experiment. (Ian Wilmut's announcement that he had successfully cloned a sheep was just as public as Pons and Fleischmann's claim, but in the case of cloning, abundant scientific details allowed scientists to judge the work's validity.)

 

Some scientific claims avoid even the scrutiny of reporters by appearing in paid commercial advertisements. A health-food company marketed a dietary supplement called Vitamin O in full-page newspaper ads. Vitamin O turned out to be ordinary saltwater.

 

2. The discoverer says that a powerful establishment is trying to suppress his or her work. The idea is that the establishment will presumably stop at nothing to suppress discoveries that might shift the balance of wealth and power in society. Often, the discoverer describes mainstream science as part of a larger conspiracy that includes industry and government. Claims that the oil companies are frustrating the invention of an automobile that runs on water, for instance, are a sure sign that the idea of such a car is baloney. In the case of cold fusion, Pons and Fleischmann blamed their cold reception on physicists who were protecting their own research in hot fusion.

 

3. The scientific effect involved is always at the very limit of detection. Alas, there is never a clear photograph of a flying saucer, or the Loch Ness monster. All scientific measurements must contend with some level of background noise or statistical fluctuation. But if the signal-to-noise ratio cannot be improved, even in principle, the effect is probably not real and the work is not science.

 

Thousands of published papers in para-psychology, for example, claim to report verified instances of telepathy, psychokinesis, or precognition. But those effects show up only in tortured analyses of statistics. The researchers can find no way to boost the signal, which suggests that it isn't really there.

 

4. Evidence for a discovery is anecdotal. If modern science has learned anything in the past century, it is to distrust anecdotal evidence. Because anecdotes have a very strong emotional impact, they serve to keep superstitious beliefs alive in an age of science. The most important discovery of modern medicine is not vaccines or antibiotics, it is the randomized double-blind test, by means of which we know what works and what doesn't. Contrary to the saying, "data" is not the plural of "anecdote."

 

5. The discoverer says a belief is credible because it has endured for centuries. There is a persistent myth that hundreds or even thousands of years ago, long before anyone knew that blood circulates throughout the body, or that germs cause disease, our ancestors possessed miraculous remedies that modern science cannot understand. Much of what is termed "alternative medicine" is part of that myth.

 

Ancient folk wisdom, rediscovered or repackaged, is unlikely to match the output of modern scientific laboratories.

 

6. The discoverer has worked in isolation. The image of a lone genius who struggles in secrecy in an attic laboratory and ends up making a revolutionary breakthrough is a staple of Hollywood's science-fiction films, but it is hard to find examples in real life. Scientific breakthroughs nowadays are almost always syntheses of the work of many scientists.

 

7. The discoverer must propose new laws of nature to explain an observation. A new law of nature, invoked to explain some extraordinary result, must not conflict with what is already known. If we must change existing laws of nature or propose new laws to account for an observation, it is almost certainly wrong.

No doubt there are all sorts of crackpots that get their jollies from exploiting the gullibility of the dumbed down sheep, but let me ask everyone here this, if you DID figure out a way to make an engine that required nothing that could be marketed to propel an automobile or you did find a way to give the world free energy, what do you think would happen? Do you really believe it wouldn't be suppressed? If you do, you're naive about the way the world is governed. Think about this, the modern automobile is essentially identical in concept and design to Ford's model T. It has four wheels, a steering wheel, a suspension, doors that swing open to allow passengers to get in and an internal combustion engine that burns fossil fuels. Electric cars also existed in that time. The point is other than the modern electronics and refinements, they're the same. Why do you suppose that is? Why do you suppose a model T got about 25 miles to the gallon and a modern SUV gets about the same?

 

The fact is we live in a world controlled by those that have , and they're didn't acquire that power to impose their will and they didn't obtain their wealth by being honest , they did it by being psychopathic and ruthless.

Science is suppressed, it always has been by the power elite of the time. Nicola Tesla was not a crackpot, but every one of you here would have labeled him that if you'd been alive in his time.

On 7/11/2017 at 4:43 AM, swansont said:

 

!

Moderator Note

We are not going to litigate evolution, or any other bit of science (or pseudoscience), in this thread.

 

Why not? Why do you seem so obsessed with control? A good moderator of a forum knows the definition of the word. Look it up

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Anonymous Participant said:

No doubt there are all sorts of crackpots that get their jollies from exploiting the gullibility of the dumbed down sheep,

Certainly are: I'm not sure though which is worse...the nutty crackpot that claims all sorts of unsupported nonsense re the universe, or the fanatical evangelist setting out on a crusade to sink the nasty scientists and science along with them. Worth noting that both only have one outlet: public forums such as this, meaning their inane yapping is simply lost in cyber space over time. :) 

Quote

The fact is we live in a world controlled by those that have , and they're didn't acquire that power to impose their will and they didn't obtain their wealth by being honest , they did it by being psychopathic and ruthless.

Quite a silly all encompassing claim that you certainly cannot support:  Obviously many obtained their wealth through honest fair means.

Quote

Science is suppressed, it always has been by the power elite of the time. Nicola Tesla was not a crackpot, but every one of you here would have labeled him that if you'd been alive in his time.

Again, another rather silly all encompassing unsupported claim: There certainly have been times when science was suppressed, and just as certain, times when it does and is openly flourishing. Tesla could certainly be classed as eccentric, not that that in itself is a bad thing. Einstein was also eccentric in some ways.

Quote

Why not? Why do you seem so obsessed with control? A good moderator of a forum knows the definition of the word. Look it up

Perhaps you need more experience on science forums to realize that controls are certainly necessary, particularly in sorting out the pseudoscience, crackpots and religious evangelists.         And obviously, certainly you are not aware of the time, effort taken by reputable moderators in controlling the ratbag element and others that I have mentioned. Or maybe you are in the wrong type of forum? 

 

Share this post


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

 Why not? Why do you seem so obsessed with control? A good moderator of a forum knows the definition of the word. Look it up

!

Moderator Note

Because the topic of this thread is "spotting pseudoscience"

This is a moderated forum. Perhaps you could investigate what that means; it includes having rules that will be enforced. 

 

 

Share this post


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

Why not? Why do you seem so obsessed with control? A good moderator of a forum knows the definition of the word. Look it up

You are perfectly free to start a thread on evolution, or to resume any recent thread on the topic. Any polite, thoughtful person would have recognised that this thread is not the place for that. I look forward to engaging with you on that thread if you choose to initiate it. I shall ignore further replies from you here that are not directly related to the OP. (At this point I apologise for continuing to take the thread off topic, but neither swansont nor beecee seem to have pointed out this option.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Area54 said:

You are perfectly free to start a thread on evolution, or to resume any recent thread on the topic. Any polite, thoughtful person would have recognised that this thread is not the place for that. I look forward to engaging with you on that thread if you choose to initiate it. I shall ignore further replies from you here that are not directly related to the OP. (At this point I apologise for continuing to take the thread off topic, but neither swansont nor beecee seem to have pointed out this option.)

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.

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..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've given your post a +1 reputation upvote. Thank you for providing, in your writing, a classic example of pseudoscience. You've managed to capture so many of its diagnostic features in only two paragraphs. Well done. Dunning-Kruger would be proud of you. /reflective despair

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 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.

Just as a matter of interest, exactly which pseudoscience do you see as legitimate? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Anonymous Participant said:

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..

Well since the BB was initially proposed by a Belgian Jesuit, priest, I believe that makes your evangelisitic like rantings rather shallow to say the least.

Edited by beecee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, DrKrettin said:

Just as a matter of interest, exactly which pseudoscience do you see as legitimate? 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Anonymous Participant said:

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

Talk (and posting mythical claims  ideas) is cheap, and actually useless without evidence.

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.