Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Should God be replaced? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Solon who wrote (23359)	4/23/2006 2:11:27 PM
From: LLCF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

<Many scientists go down the trail of pseudoscience, DAK.> Yes, especially the ones who turn out to be right... they're usually the ones who 'seem' the most pseudo. I find the most credible stuff usually has broad implications that transcend one area of inquiry. JMO The part about books and general public is interesting as credible scientists ARE actually turning more often to the general media... and they often shoot themselves in the foot scientifically because they like to extrapolate meaning into other areas. Of course that's NOT scientific, even though it often becomes so later. Anyway, just an FYI, and thanks for the lengthy info on pseudo science. <In your mind...what is the distinction between science and pseudoscience? I would like to try to understand you. Perhaps that is a first step. In what category would you place such matters as OBE's, astrology, psychic hot lines, and "mentalism"??> I don't know what 'mentalism' is... but the others don't pretend to be science do they? So I wouldn't put them in pseudo-science... but to the extent they claim scientific backing for various opinions then that's all it is and it's up to us to discern whether links make sense or not. The difference between science and pseudo science?? Jeeez, as you post points out, you could write whole volumes on it, and little parts of them would be outdated the next morning. I think people have to use their heads. We know from psychology folks will believe what they want, including scientists to some extent. I personally don't worry about such things... I think I'm pretty good at discerning bullcrap, but then everyone probably pretty much thinks that! LOL dAK

To: Solon who wrote (23359)	4/23/2006 8:13:28 PM
From: 2MAR$	Respond to of 28931

Let's review the consensus of that post ommitting 'Pseudo Science' ... and by George, you have an outline for " ______ " ?!? ;) displays an indifference to facts. "research" is invariably sloppy is indifferent to criteria of valid evidence. relies heavily on subjective validation. depends on arbitrary conventions of human culture, rather than on unchanging regularities of nature. always avoids putting its claims to a meaningful test. often contradicts itself, even in its own terms. deliberately creates mystery where none exists, by omitting crucial information and important details. does not progress. attempts to persuade with rhetoric, propaganda, and misrepresentation rather than valid evidence (which presumably does not exist). argues from ignorance, an elementary fallacy. argues from alleged exceptions, errors, anomalies, strange events, and suspect claims—rather than from well-established regularities of nature. makes extraordinary claims and advances fantastic theories that contradict what is known about nature. invent their own vocabulary in which many terms lack precise or unambiguous definitions, and some have no definition at all. appeals to the truth-criteria of scientific methodology while simultaneously denying their validity. claims that the phenomena it studies are "jealous." "explanations" tend to be by scenario. often appeal to the ancient human habit of magical thinking. relies heavily on anachronistic thinking. The older the idea, the more attractive it is to" ________"it's the wisdom of the ancients!—especially if the idea is transparently wrong and has long been discarded by science. Many journalists have trouble in comprehending this point. A typical reporter writing about astrology may think a thorough job can be done by interviewing six astrologers and one astronomer. The astronomer says it's all bunk; the six astrologers say it's great stuff and really works and for $50 they'll be glad to cast anyone's horoscope. (No doubt!) To many reporters, and apparently to many editors and their readers, this would confirm astrology six to one! can be extremely dangerous. Penetrating political systems, it justifies atrocities in the name of racial purity Penetrating the educational system, it can drive out science and sensibility; In the field of health, it dooms thousands to unnecessary death or suffering Penetrating _______, it generates fanaticism, intolerance, and holy war Penetrating the communications media, it can make it difficult for voters to obtain factual information on important public issues.