How can we tell science from pseudoscience?

[Philosophy Explorer]

And if we can, does this eliminate pseudoscience from consideration?

Here's a Wiki article that explores this:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience

PhilX

[Ginkgo]

And if we can, does this eliminate pseudoscience from consideration?

Here's a Wiki article that explores this:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience

PhilX

Would you like a list of the reason why I.D. doesn't conform to scientific methodology? Perhaps we can start with obvious point that some type of intelligent designer is not observable. As to whether this "designer" is God or the intelligent beings from Signus Prime is irrelevant. He, she, it is still not observable. Can anyone come up with or suggest an experiment (direct or indirect) that shows in empirical terms this intelligent designer. Of course not. No one can.

Intelligent design advocates can only study the effects of so-called intelligent designs. In other words, it can say nothing about causes in any sort of terms that satisfies the current scientific methodology.

It isn't science, it is pseudo-science.

[jackles]

Is consciousness scientific.Or is consciousness psuodo science. It comes back to the hard question what is consciousness.

[Melchior]

And if we can, does this eliminate pseudoscience from consideration?

Here's a Wiki article that explores this:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience

PhilX

Would you like a list of the reason why I.D. doesn't conform to scientific methodology? Perhaps we can start with obvious point that some type of intelligent designer is not observable. As to whether this "designer" is God or the intelligent beings from Signus Prime is irrelevant. He, she, it is still not observable. Can anyone come up with or suggest an experiment (direct or indirect) that shows in empirical terms this intelligent designer. Of course not. No one can.

Intelligent design advocates can only study the effects of so-called intelligent designs. In other words, it can say nothing about causes in any sort of terms that satisfies the current scientific methodology.

It isn't science, it is pseudo-science.

You forgot 'climate science'.

[Ginkgo]

Is consciousness scientific.Or is consciousness psuodo science. It comes back to the hard question what is consciousness.

I think I see what you are getting at jackles.

Consciousness studies can be scientific, pseudo-scientific and philosophical. Chalmers and his famous "hard problem of consciousness" is not an example of pseudo-science. At no stage would Chalmers ever claim he was doing science when he formulated this term.

Materialist explanations for consciousness quite simply tell us there is no problem, least of all any hard problem. Science of consciousness also tells us that we can solve the problem of consciousness without resorting to metaphysical explanations.

[Ginkgo]

And if we can, does this eliminate pseudoscience from consideration?

Here's a Wiki article that explores this:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience

PhilX

Would you like a list of the reason why I.D. doesn't conform to scientific methodology? Perhaps we can start with obvious point that some type of intelligent designer is not observable. As to whether this "designer" is God or the intelligent beings from Signus Prime is irrelevant. He, she, it is still not observable. Can anyone come up with or suggest an experiment (direct or indirect) that shows in empirical terms this intelligent designer. Of course not. No one can.

Intelligent design advocates can only study the effects of so-called intelligent designs. In other words, it can say nothing about causes in any sort of terms that satisfies the current scientific methodology.

It isn't science, it is pseudo-science.

You forgot 'climate science'.

Many people are of the opinion that climate science is a concocted science. Others are critical of climate science because the theory doesn't match the observations.

[hammock]

And if we can, does this eliminate pseudoscience from consideration?

Not eliminated from any attention whatsoever. If science didn't have restrictive formal conditions that make it possible (or philosophical presuppositions which it operates under), then little distinction between the two could be claimed. Thus accusations of "pseudoscience", when judged to be warranted, may also be construed as evidence against the view below. Occasionally if not often espoused by scientists themselves, like Medawar.

Ask a scientist what he conceives the scientific method to be, and he will adopt an expression that is at once solemn and shifty-eyed: solemn, because he feels he ought to declare an opinion; shifty-eyed, because he is wondering how to conceal the fact that he has no opinion to declare. ... If the purpose of scientific methodology is to prescribe or expound a system of enquiry or even a code of practice for scientific behavior, then scientists seem to be able to get on very well without it. Most scientists receive no tuition in scientific method, but those who have been instructed perform no better as scientists than those who have not. Of what other branch of learning can it be said that it gives its proficients no advantage; that it need not be taught or, if taught, need not be learned? [Induction and Intuition in Scientific Thought]

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Pseudo-science is the opposite of science. Pseudo-science tries to prove its hypotheses right by ignoring evidence to the contrary, science tries to prove its hypotheses wrong by looking for evidence to the contrary.

[Greylorn Ell]

PhilX,

Philosophers cannot distinguish real science from pseudo-science because they are ignorant of physics, the mother of all sciences.

The process could be managed via the careful analysis of words and the concepts they try to describe, but the glut of modern philosophers are incapable of doing so because they lack the cognitive skills necessary to master physics-- the ability to distinguish logic from nonsense. Philosophers have yet to uncover the biggest hoax in science history, that Darwinism or neo-Darwinism is the best example of pseudo-science ever perpetrated upon a dimwitted populace. Darwinism is successful not because it is legitimate science, but because its competitor, Christianity's biblical creation story, is so dreadfully stupid.

How could participants in a pseudo-thought style like philosophy possibly locate problems in a thought-style that requires more intelligence?

Greylorn

[vegetariantaxidermy]

PhilX,

Philosophers cannot distinguish real science from pseudo-science because they are ignorant of physics, the mother of all sciences.

The process could be managed via the careful analysis of words and the concepts they try to describe, but the glut of modern philosophers are incapable of doing so because they lack the cognitive skills necessary to master physics-- the ability to distinguish logic from nonsense. Philosophers have yet to uncover the biggest hoax in science history, that Darwinism or neo-Darwinism is the best example of pseudo-science ever perpetrated upon a dimwitted populace. Darwinism is successful not because it is legitimate science, but because its competitor, Christianity's biblical creation story, is so dreadfully stupid.

How could participants in a pseudo-thought style like philosophy possibly locate problems in a thought-style that requires more intelligence?

Greylorn

From someone who believe in 'psychics'.

[Melchior]

You also need to distinguish between good science and bad science.

[Greylorn Ell]

And if we can, does this eliminate pseudoscience from consideration?

Here's a Wiki article that explores this:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience

PhilX

Would you like a list of the reason why I.D. doesn't conform to scientific methodology? Perhaps we can start with obvious point that some type of intelligent designer is not observable. As to whether this "designer" is God or the intelligent beings from Signus Prime is irrelevant. He, she, it is still not observable. Can anyone come up with or suggest an experiment (direct or indirect) that shows in empirical terms this intelligent designer. Of course not. No one can.

Intelligent design advocates can only study the effects of so-called intelligent designs. In other words, it can say nothing about causes in any sort of terms that satisfies the current scientific methodology.

It isn't science, it is pseudo-science.

Ginkgo,

In the context of the design/engineering/whatever required by those who seek to explain biological evolution, yes, God remains invisible.

Likewise the alternative offered by Darwinists remains equally invisible.

The mechanism currently offered by Darwinists as the source of biological change is random chance mutations of DNA molecules at the germ-cell level. Let's see what real science can do with this.

At the purely theoretical/mathematical level we can calculate the probability of a single 900 base-pair gene mutating, without regard as to the nature of the mutation. It could be beneficial to the critter involved. It could be detrimental or as is more likely, irrelevant. 900 base-pair genes are the smallest of the significant protein-producing genes. For every smallish 900 bp gene there is a 1500 bp gene for which the calculations are less favorable. The average is, of course, 1200 base-pairs.

The probability that any 900 bp gene will mutate so as to produce a different protein than it had been producing is 1.4 x 10exp-542. For those philosophers unversed in mathematical notation, that's a decimal point followed by 543 zeroes (.00000000...etc) finished up by 1.4. Honest scientists treat such probabilities as indications of the impossible. So much for theoretical science.

Experimental science has followed up with equally disappointing results. It's minions figured correctly that intense radiation would trigger genetic mutations, so they radiated the shit out of some captive fruit flies (chosen for their short generation cycle). The radiation induced many mutations, as predicted-- flies with 6 wings, extra heads, additional eyes, etc. The experimenters simulated "natural selection" of these mutated traits by isolating and interbreeding the mutated critters. E.g: six-winged flies were bred with other six-winged flies, etc.

The result of their work? After several inbred generations the anomalous fruit-fly families lost their peculiar, artificially-induced traits and reverted to normal flies producing normal offspring.

This single experiment proves that by way of explanations for new and interesting critters, both random mutations and "Natural Selection" make even less sense than creationism, if that is possible. Do the mathematical or experimental failures of their Darwinist beliefs stop these dumb-assed stand-ins for legitimate scientists from promulgating those absurd beliefs?

Nope. And the negative evidence for Darwinism will never sway pinheaded Darwinists from their beliefs, just as similar negative evidence for Creationist beliefs will not faze the Creationists. All are members of a common gang of mindless believers in whatever nonsense they've been programmed to accept as truth.

Greylorn

[Philosophy Explorer]

Something to be considered in connection with this thread:

http://www.theverge.com/2015/6/9/874984 ... tti-lacour

PhilX

[Greylorn Ell]

PhilX,

Philosophers cannot distinguish real science from pseudo-science because they are ignorant of physics, the mother of all sciences.

The process could be managed via the careful analysis of words and the concepts they try to describe, but the glut of modern philosophers are incapable of doing so because they lack the cognitive skills necessary to master physics-- the ability to distinguish logic from nonsense. Philosophers have yet to uncover the biggest hoax in science history, that Darwinism or neo-Darwinism is the best example of pseudo-science ever perpetrated upon a dimwitted populace. Darwinism is successful not because it is legitimate science, but because its competitor, Christianity's biblical creation story, is so dreadfully stupid.

How could participants in a pseudo-thought style like philosophy possibly locate problems in a thought-style that requires more intelligence?

Greylorn

From someone who believe in 'psychics'.

I don't "believe" in psychics, shit-for-brains. I am one, and I've observed better ones at work.

If you were smart enough to make it through 9th-grade English class, you'd have used the plural of "believe."

Greylorn

[Greylorn Ell]

Pseudo-science is the opposite of science. Pseudo-science tries to prove its hypotheses right by ignoring evidence to the contrary, science tries to prove its hypotheses wrong by looking for evidence to the contrary.

Wrong again, veggie;

Pseudo-science is science that promotes evidence that matches its theories/beliefs (e.g. Darwinism, Big-Bang cosmology, the Standard Model) while ignoring contrary evidence.

Are you really as ignorant and incompetent as you come off, or are you a psychologist conducting an experiment on the limited level of understanding that "philosophers" can achieve?

Greylorn