Total Posts:59|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

There is no such thing as...

popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2011 12:30:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
..."psuedoscience". Or, if there is, it's impossible to distinguish it from science.

Discuss. :)
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2011 12:32:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/19/2011 12:30:33 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
..."psuedoscience". Or, if there is, it's impossible to distinguish it from science.

Discuss. :)

psuedoscience means fake science. Or, more clearly, things that are not scientifically accurate, that are inaccurately presented as scientifically accurate.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2011 12:33:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/19/2011 12:30:33 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
..."psuedoscience". Or, if there is, it's impossible to distinguish it from science.

Discuss. :)

Science = the scientific method.

Oh poo... I've just consigned most of modern science to psuedoscience...
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2011 12:34:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/19/2011 12:33:26 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 1/19/2011 12:30:33 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
..."psuedoscience". Or, if there is, it's impossible to distinguish it from science.

Discuss. :)

Science = the scientific method.

Oh poo... I've just consigned most of modern science to psuedoscience...

Yes, yes you have.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2011 12:48:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/19/2011 12:34:16 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 1/19/2011 12:33:26 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 1/19/2011 12:30:33 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
..."psuedoscience". Or, if there is, it's impossible to distinguish it from science.

Discuss. :)

Science = the scientific method.

Oh poo... I've just consigned most of modern science to psuedoscience...

Yes, yes you have.

i'm lost...? modern science =/= the scientfic method?
signature
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2011 12:52:21 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/19/2011 12:48:31 PM, badger wrote:
At 1/19/2011 12:34:16 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 1/19/2011 12:33:26 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 1/19/2011 12:30:33 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
..."psuedoscience". Or, if there is, it's impossible to distinguish it from science.

Discuss. :)

Science = the scientific method.

Oh poo... I've just consigned most of modern science to psuedoscience...

Yes, yes you have.

i'm lost...? modern science =/= the scientfic method?

To an extent yes.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
vardas0antras
Posts: 983
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2011 12:53:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/19/2011 12:30:33 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
..."psuedoscience". Or, if there is, it's impossible to distinguish it from science.

Discuss. :)

You owe us an explanation and a 100 dead Nazis.
"When he awoke in a tomb three days later he would actually have believed that he rose from the dead" FREEDO about the resurrection of Jesus Christ
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2011 1:00:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I'd say a pseudoscience is something like Astrology.. or the mystical body points chinese stuff talks about...

it's a system of how things interact... but takes ridiculous, unproven, assumptions for granted.

Everything has answers for why things work a certain way...
just ridiculous ones.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2011 1:57:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Pseudoscience would be to try to pass something off as scientific when it fails to follow the scientific method.

Overall, science is much more reliable than pseudoscience.

A lot of the stuff that people try to pass off as science is really just speculation. Speculation is fun, but to try and pass it off as fact makes you really no better than the people who try to pass Noetic science or Christian science as fact.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
tigg13
Posts: 302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2011 3:02:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/19/2011 12:30:33 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
..."psuedoscience". Or, if there is, it's impossible to distinguish it from science.

Discuss. :)

I've always been under the impression that the difference between science and psuedoscience had something to do with funding.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2011 3:22:45 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/19/2011 12:32:23 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 1/19/2011 12:30:33 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
..."psuedoscience". Or, if there is, it's impossible to distinguish it from science.

Discuss. :)

psuedoscience means fake science. Or, more clearly, things that are not scientifically accurate, that are inaccurately presented as scientifically accurate.

That's actually not true. Inaccurate science =/= pseudoscience.

For example classical physics is real science, but quantum physics has shown classical physics to be inaccurate. Classical physics is not and never was considered pseudoscience.

mattrodstrom's explanation of pseudoscience would be more correct.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2011 4:52:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/19/2011 12:30:33 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
..."psuedoscience". Or, if there is, it's impossible to distinguish it from science.

Discuss. :)

pseudoscience is something that claims to be scientific, but has failed to rigorous demands of scientific/rational inquiry. in general its people making under-substantiated claims that are put forth as facts, that have either failed experimental tests or are not testable, and then further claiming that there is a scientific basis to what they are saying.

somehow i feel like this is a trick question though, lol...
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2011 4:56:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I don't know if I can truly believe that science is indistinguishable from pseudoscience... Would you be willing to back that up, PCP?
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2011 4:58:41 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/19/2011 3:22:45 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 1/19/2011 12:32:23 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 1/19/2011 12:30:33 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
..."psuedoscience". Or, if there is, it's impossible to distinguish it from science.

Discuss. :)

psuedoscience means fake science. Or, more clearly, things that are not scientifically accurate, that are inaccurately presented as scientifically accurate.

That's actually not true. Inaccurate science =/= pseudoscience.

For example classical physics is real science, but quantum physics has shown classical physics to be inaccurate. Classical physics is not and never was considered pseudoscience.

mattrodstrom's explanation of pseudoscience would be more correct.

I said "fake."

I also specified that it is when things which are "inaccurate" or falsely protraied as accurate.

No scientist is going to say that newtonian physics are 100%, but they will say that it is accurate enough for daily calculations (which is true).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2011 5:14:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I think it depends on what the criteria for calling something "science" are. If the only criterion is "adheres to the scientific method", then pseudoscience would be anything attempting to pass itself off as science without adhering to the scientific method. You might also include among those criteria "having verifiable references", "legitimately peer-reviewed", and so forth.

Overall, I think it's inaccurate to say that pseudoscience doesn't exist or is indistinguishable from actual science. It's a matter of A) knowing that it exists, and B) identifying it where it does exist.
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2011 5:29:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/19/2011 5:22:57 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 1/19/2011 5:22:28 PM, FREEDO wrote:
This threads works better with pseudophilosophy.

It's called "FREEDOism".

Fix'd
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2011 5:31:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/19/2011 5:29:07 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 1/19/2011 5:22:57 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 1/19/2011 5:22:28 PM, FREEDO wrote:
This threads works better with pseudophilosophy.

It's called "FREEDOism".

Fix'd

Ouch, that is a kick in the pride balls.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2011 5:33:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/19/2011 5:30:05 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 1/19/2011 5:29:07 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 1/19/2011 5:22:57 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 1/19/2011 5:22:28 PM, FREEDO wrote:
This threads works better with pseudophilosophy.

It's called "FREEDOism".

Fix'd

Danke. :P

Bitte schön. :)
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2011 5:33:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/19/2011 5:31:42 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 1/19/2011 5:29:07 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 1/19/2011 5:22:57 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 1/19/2011 5:22:28 PM, FREEDO wrote:
This threads works better with pseudophilosophy.

It's called "FREEDOism".

Fix'd

Ouch, that is a kick in the pride balls.

He's an "alogicist".
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2011 5:35:45 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/19/2011 5:33:08 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 1/19/2011 5:31:42 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 1/19/2011 5:29:07 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 1/19/2011 5:22:57 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 1/19/2011 5:22:28 PM, FREEDO wrote:
This threads works better with pseudophilosophy.

It's called "FREEDOism".

Fix'd

Ouch, that is a kick in the pride balls.

He's an "alogicist".

I am many things.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2011 5:43:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/19/2011 5:35:45 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 1/19/2011 5:33:08 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 1/19/2011 5:31:42 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 1/19/2011 5:29:07 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 1/19/2011 5:22:57 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 1/19/2011 5:22:28 PM, FREEDO wrote:
This threads works better with pseudophilosophy.

It's called "FREEDOism".

Fix'd

Ouch, that is a kick in the pride balls.

He's an "alogicist".

I am many things.

If you're consistent with your alogicism, you wouldn't even be able to speak, since rejecting the law of identity basically renders you incapable of doing anything--of believing that you are you, that words mean what they mean, than many things aren't just a single thing, that things are things to begin with, and so forth.
nonentity
Posts: 5,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2011 6:48:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/19/2011 12:30:33 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
..."psuedoscience". Or, if there is, it's impossible to distinguish it from science.

Discuss. :)

I'm curious as to what prompted you to say this... is this what you believe? Why?
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2011 6:48:45 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/19/2011 4:56:43 PM, annhasle wrote:
I don't know if I can truly believe that science is indistinguishable from pseudoscience... Would you be willing to back that up, PCP?

Now that there's some responses, sure. :)

I'm saying (in a very roundabout and hyperbolic way) that there has never been a satisfactory answer to the "demarcation problem" in philosophy of science. Ever.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://plato.stanford.edu...

If we can't clearly specify (give the necessary and sufficient conditions) of what science is then we can't demarcate the boundary between science and non-science ("pseudoscience", history, metaphysics, aesthetics, religion, ethics, whatever). The term "pseudoscience" literally becomes useless, then.

Inb4 someone says "falsifiability" is what makes science science.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2011 7:02:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/19/2011 6:48:45 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 1/19/2011 4:56:43 PM, annhasle wrote:
I don't know if I can truly believe that science is indistinguishable from pseudoscience... Would you be willing to back that up, PCP?

Now that there's some responses, sure. :)

I'm saying (in a very roundabout and hyperbolic way) that there has never been a satisfactory answer to the "demarcation problem" in philosophy of science. Ever.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://plato.stanford.edu...

If we can't clearly specify (give the necessary and sufficient conditions) of what science is then we can't demarcate the boundary between science and non-science ("pseudoscience", history, metaphysics, aesthetics, religion, ethics, whatever). The term "pseudoscience" literally becomes useless, then.

Inb4 someone says "falsifiability" is what makes science science.

i don't really understand what you're trying to achieve here.. to not have religion called "pseudoscience" anymore? we've always got "sillyness" to fall back on :)
signature
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2011 7:06:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/19/2011 7:02:16 PM, badger wrote:
At 1/19/2011 6:48:45 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 1/19/2011 4:56:43 PM, annhasle wrote:
I don't know if I can truly believe that science is indistinguishable from pseudoscience... Would you be willing to back that up, PCP?

Now that there's some responses, sure. :)

I'm saying (in a very roundabout and hyperbolic way) that there has never been a satisfactory answer to the "demarcation problem" in philosophy of science. Ever.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://plato.stanford.edu...

If we can't clearly specify (give the necessary and sufficient conditions) of what science is then we can't demarcate the boundary between science and non-science ("pseudoscience", history, metaphysics, aesthetics, religion, ethics, whatever). The term "pseudoscience" literally becomes useless, then.

Inb4 someone says "falsifiability" is what makes science science.

i don't really understand what you're trying to achieve here.. to not have religion called "pseudoscience" anymore? we've always got "sillyness" to fall back on :)

Uh, no, that's not the point. Read the links. There's no good way to define what "science" is.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2011 7:08:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/19/2011 6:48:45 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 1/19/2011 4:56:43 PM, annhasle wrote:
I don't know if I can truly believe that science is indistinguishable from pseudoscience... Would you be willing to back that up, PCP?

Now that there's some responses, sure. :)

I'm saying (in a very roundabout and hyperbolic way) that there has never been a satisfactory answer to the "demarcation problem" in philosophy of science. Ever.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://plato.stanford.edu...

If we can't clearly specify (give the necessary and sufficient conditions) of what science is then we can't demarcate the boundary between science and non-science ("pseudoscience", history, metaphysics, aesthetics, religion, ethics, whatever). The term "pseudoscience" literally becomes useless, then.

Inb4 someone says "falsifiability" is what makes science science.

meeeeh isn't that kind of like saying that because we can't clearly define what life is (is a virus alive? etc) that theres no way to tell whether something is alive or dead? if we had to wait until all our concepts were defined in an airtight way to use them, we wouldn't have much to talk about...
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2011 7:16:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Uh, no, that's not the point. Read the links. There's no good way to define what "science" is.:

Sure there is. Science is based on measurable and predictable results, pseudo-science uses jargon commonly accepted within the fields of science and plays pretend. It fools people ignorant of the subject but doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)