Pseudoscience

[Sigma 768]

A link so you'll know what I'm talking about.

Sometimes fake science gets published, even by credible people such as professors. Aside from Princess Twilight Sparkle, Applejack is my number one role model in My Little Pony. She has a good, quality oriented worth ethic; and is honest. Tell a lie in science, and your credibility is bucked; plain and simple. Have you ever read something posted by a scientist that sounded like nonsense? Well, odds are, it probably was.

 

It's important to remember that scientists are humans just like you and me, and are prone to mistakes and even purposeful wrongdoing. Feel free to give examples and tell us why you believe they're pseudoscientific.

[Teller 360]

Astrology is the ultimate pseudoscience.

 

Also, Slushy Magic's "Snowflake Science".

Edited April 13, 2014 by Teller

[Twilie 184]

I read about these magical beads that had this magic particle in them... apparently the particles had gone faster than light speed at one point (or something along those lines). Apparently they were a cure all (even curing cancer) and the company was selling them for hundreds of dollars each.

I really hate it when people profit off of other's gullibility..

 

My rule of thumb; If its not FDA approved then it probably doesn't work. (Unless by the placebo effect.. but thats a different story..)

[Sigma 768]

Astrology is the ultimate pseudoscience.

 

I'm willing to counter that with Sigmund Freud's next to everything.

[Teller 360]

I'm willing to counter that with Sigmund Freud's next to everything.

I really don't think it's possible to apply the scientific method to finding out whether a Virgo is compatible with a Pisces, but that's just me and my crazy talk.

 

And Psychology is a real science.

Edited April 13, 2014 by Teller

[CMQuickfireTK 751]

sudo science is easy, you just execute as root!

[Sigma 768]

I really don't think it's possible to apply the scientific method to finding out whether a Virgo is compatible with a Pisces, but that's just me and my crazy talk.

 

And Psychology is a real science.

 

Psychology may be a real science, but Sigmund Freud was definitely not a true contributor. Every theory he made has been devoured by controversy.

 

Things once believed long ago but has been properly dismissed by modern science is one thing, but feeding the public false information, claiming it to be true science is another. It's a step backwards from what science is trying to achieve.

Edited April 13, 2014 by Asterisk Propernoun

[PsychedelicPony 440]

The good news is because of the availability of information, the interconnectedness of the internet, and the consequences of a interconnected society the amount of false information, forged studies, and falsified reports is definitely down and on the decline. Due to science being skeptical and now worldwide information being available testing other scientist's work has been easier than ever before, rooting out bad science before it gets too bad.

 

Also the worst for me as a Psychology student is the amount of psychobabble you hear on daily basis, whether it be about Schizophrenia, Bipolar, Freud, and the like.

Edited April 13, 2014 by PsychedelicPony

[Teller 360]

Psychology may be a real science, but Sigmund Freud was definitely not a true contributor. Every theory he made has been devoured by controversy.

Controversy, yes, but I don't recall any of his theories being disproven.

[aoEAF2FBvC0MIo2Q 3,671]

Well, pseudoscience COULD inspire or make for some interesting world mechanics in fantasy or sci-fi fiction, right? 

[Arctic Night 884]

Funny that you should post this. I just finished reading Carl Sagan's The Demon Haunted World. A great book. You should read it if you haven't done so.

 

There are many examples of pseudoscience, many of which I will not discuss here because people believe in them with great conviction. One of the sillier examples though, as has been mentioned, is astrology. Here is a great video informing viewers on it.

 

 

 

Honestly, the end was too funny...

 

Everyone makes mistakes. Even scientists. Fortunately, science can be our candle in the dark.

Well, pseudoscience COULD inspire or make for some interesting world mechanics in fantasy or sci-fi fiction, right? 

Possibly, but it is often inapplicable to the real world. And that is what matters in science. The workings of the natural world.

 

But yes, I love stories about magic just as much as the next guy.

[Sigma 768]

Controversy, yes, but I don't recall any of his theories being disproven.

 

Most of the controversy is revolving around whenever he followed the scientific method or not, and some of it is regarding stolen work. There are many claims of him doing things such as making hypothesis look like conclusions, taking credit for other people's curing of mental illnesses, and extremely exaggerating data. His hypothesis may have been either right or wrong, but it the good old "Proof or it's not so." that has people all riled up. There are people claiming that they've found evidence of Freud and his 'Freudian' followers committing psuedoscience in these ways.

 

All and all, I'm at least willing to give him credit for giving us words such as 'uncanny'.

Edited April 13, 2014 by Asterisk Propernoun

[NomDeSpite 452]

Alot of ideas that are claimed to be "pseudoscience" actually are not. Immanuel Velikovsky's catastrophic theory is an example of an idea that has been savagely attacked yet has survived over time because of its very impressive predictive power. Most people who  frequently label certain ideas as "pseudoscience" are making two mistakes:

 

1. they assume that philosophical naturalistic-materialism is true, hence any ideas that fall outside of this philosophical paradigm are automatically wrong. So telepathy can "never happen", nor can anyone ever have their illnesses healed by prayers to God. And so on and so forth. These people never explain why naturalistic-materialism is true. They just assume it.

2. they have unwarranted and irrational trust in "the established powers", i.e. the dominant opinions in the sciences, in philosophy, in mainstream institutions like governments and colleges, etc., even when these institutions have been proven not to work. It's basically an Appeal To Authority fallacy taken to an extreme degree.

 

What people need to do is keep their minds open and stop being so quick to dismiss everything as pseudoscience or "quackery". Listen to this video from Rupert Sheldrake. He's a brilliant scientist and researcher who takes losers like Michael Shermer and James Randi to the cleaners.

 

Edited April 13, 2014 by NomDeSpite

[Arctic Night 884]

Alot of ideas that are claimed to be "pseudoscience" actually are not. Immanuel Velikovsky's catastrophic theory is an example of an idea that has been savagely attacked yet has survived over time because of its very impressive predictive power. Most people who  frequently label certain ideas as "pseudoscience" are making two mistakes:

 

1. they assume that philosophical naturalistic-materialism is true, hence any ideas that fall outside of this philosophical paradigm are automatically wrong. So telepathy can "never happen", nor can anyone ever have their illnesses healed by prayers to God. And so on and so forth. These people never explain why naturalistic-materialism is true. They just assume it.

2. they have unwarranted and irrational trust in "the established powers", i.e. the dominant opinions in the sciences, in philosophy, in mainstream institutions like governments and colleges, etc., even when these institutions have been proven not to work. It's basically an Appeal To Authority fallacy taken to an extreme degree.

 

What people need to do is keep their minds open and stop being so quick to dismiss everything as pseudoscience or "quackery". Listen to this video from Rupert Sheldrake. He's a brilliant scientist and researcher who takes losers like Michael Shermer and James Randi to the cleaners.

 

1.) Uh, no? We are waiting for evidence. That is different than assuming something is impossible.

2.) That would be argument from authority, which is not allowed in science.

 

And aren't you the one who blamed autism on vaccines?

 

EDIT: Didn't even have to watch the whole video. The guy referred to science as a "belief system" even though it is mostly concerned with evidence, not "beliefs."

Edited April 13, 2014 by King Ghidora

[NomDeSpite 452]

@, you could not have possibly watched the entirety of Sheldrake's speech. Not enough time has passed. I think you would find its contents interesting.

 

2.) That would be argument from authority, which is not allowed in science.

They aren't allowed in science? Says who? Is there a Great Big Rulebook Of Science with a holy commandment stating, "thou shalt not make appeals to authority when defending a theory"? If so, could you show it to me?

 

I cannot count the number of times I have heard "science fetishists" as I call them (you know, the people who get their science info from pop-science entertainers and IFLS) defend evolution by natural selection by stating "90-something percent of biologists accept it, who are you to question them?". If ENS is to be accepted, it must be done using evidence, reason or predictive power (predictive power is too often ignored in science). Not Appeals to Authority/Popularity. (for the record, no I'm not a creationist).

 

The same thing applies to anthropogenic global warming. They just toss out "scientific consensus" and act as if this Appeal To Popularity is enough to clinch victory.

Edited April 13, 2014 by NomDeSpite

[Arctic Night 884]

@, you could not have possibly watched the entirety of Sheldrake's speech. Not enough time has passed. I think you would find its contents interesting.

 

 

 

They aren't allowed in science? Says who? Is there a Great Big Rulebook Of Science with a holy commandment stating, "thou shalt not make appeals to authority when defending a theory"? If so, could you show it to me?

 

I cannot count the number of times I have heard "science fetishists" as I call them (you know, the people who get their science info from pop-science entertainers and IFLS) defend evolution by natural selection by stating "90-something percent of biologists accept it, who are you to question them?". If ENS is to be accepted, it must be done using evidence, reason or predictive power (predictive power is too often ignored in science). Not Appeals to Authority/Popularity. (for the record, no I'm not a creationist)

Yes, people appeal to authority when discussing science. Just as people put "I'm not a creationist" as though they assume that the person with whom they are communicating with doesn't understand what the topic is, or is some anti-Christian jerk. That does not mean that they are appropriately representing science.

 

Not using arguments from authority is not a "rule of science." It is a logical fallacy in any field, and considering the fact that science is concerned with reality, logical fallacies are not welcome.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority

Edited April 13, 2014 by King Ghidora

[Sigma 768]

I almost posted this topic in the forum's debate section before changing my mind and posting it here.

 

I knew I should have gone through with my original plan.

[NomDeSpite 452]

 

 

Not using arguments from authority is not a "rule of science." It is a logical fallacy in any field, and considering the fact that science is concerned with reality, logical fallacies are not welcome.

Okay. I understand.

 

However, it's distasteful to stop watching Sheldrake's speech 37 seconds in (that's when he says "belief system"). Because he makes a good point: there are 10 assumptions that "modern science" works under, and he proceeds to explain these assumptions and provides evidence against two of them. Sheldrake is clearly someone who is concerned with evidence. People like Richard Dawkins by contrast are more interested in the "belief" aspect of science ("What is interesting about the scientific worldview is that it is true" -April 28, 1995, Times Higher Education). When Dawkins approached Sheldrake to interview him for his "Enemies Of Reason" documentary,  Dawkins told Sheldrake "I don't want to talk about the evidence" (regarding human telepathy)

 

I almost posted this topic in the forum's debate section before changing my mind and posting it here.

 

I knew I should have gone through with my original plan.

You were expecting no objections? Hah.

Do you have any thoughts to give on Sheldrake's speech?

[Sigma 768]

Funny that you should post this. I just finished reading Carl Sagan's The Demon Haunted World. A great book. You should read it if you haven't done so.

 

There are many examples of pseudoscience, many of which I will not discuss here because people believe in them with great conviction. One of the sillier examples though, as has been mentioned, is astrology. Here is a great video informing viewers on it.

 

 

 

Honestly, the end was too funny...

 

Everyone makes mistakes. Even scientists. Fortunately, science can be our candle in the dark.

Possibly, but it is often inapplicable to the real world. And that is what matters in science. The workings of the natural world.

 

But yes, I love stories about magic just as much as the next guy.

 

Heh, I've read a book on similar matters called "Yes, We Have No Neutrons." by A.K Dewdney. It talks about mistaken science and gives various examples along with proper explanations on why it isn't real science; and the occasional 'fun fact', such as the fact that over ninety percent of the earth's photosynthesis is carried out by life in the ocean.

 

It's an entertaining and informational read that I recommend to you.

[Arctic Night 884]

Okay. I understand.

 

However, it's distasteful to stop watching Sheldrake's speech 37 seconds in (that's when he says "belief system"). Because he makes a good point: there are 10 assumptions that "modern science" works under, and he proceeds to explain these assumptions and provides evidence against two of them. Sheldrake is clearly someone who is concerned with evidence. People like Richard Dawkins by contrast are more interested in the "belief" aspect of science ("What is interesting about the scientific worldview is that it is true" -April 28, 1995, Times Higher Education). When Dawkins approached Sheldrake to interview him for his "Enemies Of Reason" documentary,  Dawkins told Sheldrake "I don't want to talk about the evidence" (regarding human telepathy)

 

You were expecting no objections? Hah.

Do you have any thoughts to give on Sheldrake's speech?

I will watch the whole video. But you need to understand that a few bigoted people do not represent the scientific method. Richard Dawkins does not. I do not. Nor does the guy in your video. At the start of the video, he attacks science, not Dawkins, which is ridiculous.

EDIT: I understand that this was poor wording. What I mean is that the method is independent of the opinions of those who use it, and study it.

"Those who invalidate reason ought seriously to consider whether they argue against reason with or without reason; if with reason, then they establish the principles that they are laboring to dethrone: but if they argue without reason (which, in order to be consistent with themselves they must do), they are out of reach of rational conviction, nor do they deserve a rational argument. [Ethan Allen (quoted from Carl Sagan's The Demon-Haunted World)]"

http://atheism.about.com/library/quotes/bl_q_EAllen.htm

 

 

 

Heh, I've read a book on similar matters called "Yes, We Have No Neutrons." by A.K Dewdney. It talks about mistaken science and gives various examples along with proper explanations on why it isn't real science; and the occasional 'fun fact', such as the fact that over ninety percent of the earth's photosynthesis is carried out by life in the ocean.

 

It's an entertaining and informational read that I recommend to you.

It shall be read.

Edited April 13, 2014 by King Ghidora

[NomDeSpite 452]

you need to understand that a few bigoted people do not represent the scientific method.

I agree. I already understand this. Sheldrake says as much in this video: "there's a difference between science as a method of inquiry and science as a belief system". (not a verbatim quote but close to it)

 

 

At the start of the video, he attacks science,

What Sheldrake is attacking is "the science delusion", not the scientific method. Sheldrake has a PhD in biochemistry from Cambridge University, has 11 years under his belt as a biology professor and his website has all the research papers he's published over his career. A person like that is not going to attack science itself.

 

 

quoted from Carl Sagan's The Demon-Haunted World

Since you view Carl Sagan as a hero, I regret to inform you that earlier on in his career, he was embroiled in "the Velikovsky affair". He made an attempt at refuting Velikovsky and did not act in good faith. He lied about Velikovsky, misrepresented his theories, utilized the Argument From Incredulity (Velikovsky's ideas are weird and difficult to believe, therefore they're false), fired a professor named James McCanney from Cornell University for daring to conduct experiments on Velikovsky's ideas...there's even a book about Sagan's misbehavior: "Carl Sagan And Immanuel Velikovsky" by Charles Ginenthal. So I would place Sagan in the "close-minded" bigot category also, even though he was alot better at disguising it than Dawkins.

Edited April 13, 2014 by NomDeSpite

[CT-1138 3,180]

Ack, I despise all those pseudoscience reality shows that make up so much of the "educational" channels these days.

[Arctic Night 884]

Awaiting edit please wait

 

 

Edited April 13, 2014 by King Ghidora

[Malinter 3,064]

Well, pseudoscience COULD inspire or make for some interesting world mechanics in fantasy or sci-fi fiction, right? 

 

AKA: Assissin's Creed's Animus Device.

[Arctic Night 884]

I should have known better as soon as you called James Randi a loser...

 

Rupert Sheldrake's Pseudoscience 

   "In criticising Francis Crick for his materialist interpretation of human behaviour, Sheldrake quotes Carl Sagan – “Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.” (Although in the next chapter this exact quote is dismissed as a materialist slogan!)" - http://philosophynow.org/issues/93/The_Science_Delusion_by_Rupert_Sheldrake

 

 And thus, the pseudoscience is revealed. It is revealed as soon Sheldrake refuses to provide evidence.

 

"It's fairly easy to distinguish science from pseudoscience on the basis of the final product, the laws and theories. If the results (1) cannot be tested in any way, (2) have been tested and always failed the test, or (3) predict results that are contradictory to well established and well tested science, then we can fairly safely say that we are dealing with pseudoscience." - (Simanek) http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/pseudo/scipseud.htm

 

Disclaimer: My original statement was going to have, apparently, taken hours to write, so I made a shortened version. Please note that I am not an expert. I have taken all facts from reputable sources. 

 

Basically, as somewhat carried on into the aforementioned video, Rupert follows the unproven idea of "morphic resonance," which is related to a universal life-force (Shermer). This is just one example of how Rupert uses argument from ignorance as a means of creating his own pseudoscientific explanations for occurrences that may or may not already be explainable. What claims he has made that cannot be tested, are, by definition, pseudoscience. Likewise, a few of his claims that could be tested have been. To tie this opening rebuttal in with the video, his claims on "the feeling of being watched" have been refuted. 

 

"Third, in 2000 John Colwell of Middlesex University in London conducted a formal test using Sheldrake's experimental protocol. Twelve volunteers participated in 12 sequences of 20 stare or no-stare trials each and received accuracy feedback for the final nine sessions. Results: subjects could detect being stared at only when accuracy feedback was provided, which Colwell attributed to the subjects learning what was, in fact, a nonrandom presentation of the trials. When University of Hertfordshire psychologist Richard Wiseman also attempted to replicate Sheldrake's research, he found that subjects detected stares at rates no better than chance." 

- Michael Schermer, Scientific American

 

You may ask what this small issue with Sheldrake's works has to do with the video. The point is, this is just one way that we can prove his statements are baseless. Here are some other things that I've noticed personally:

• He encourages "skepticism" and "questioning" and yet does not acknowledge that his own claims are without substantiation. I actually agree with him: we should avoid tired out dogmas. And as I will explain more in depth, some old laws can be brought into question. But he did not once provide evidence for alternative explanations.
• He completely avoided further explaining his statements on the Law of Conservation of Energy. (Because he "didn't have the time.") All I know is that, if I could disprove this well established law, I wouldn't give a [deleted expletive] how much time I had. It was his duty as a "scientist" to explain himself.

What could he have been right about?

• Apparently there was, at some point, some confusion over the speed of light. It involved the density of particles and some other things which I am in no way qualified to explain (Emspak). However, even then, there was apparently just as much counter evidence. 1.) The idea that the speed of light is not constant has obviously not substantiated well-enough yet. (Unless you believe there is some conspiracy to hide evidence or "fudge," as Sheldrake would say, the results.) 2.) What little evidence there was to support him, Sheldrake apparently did not use. Very telling.
• Yes you should question things. Unfortunately for our friend Rupert, that applies to him as well. And while, as I will prove, many of his so called "dogmas" as given in the video do in fact stand up to reality, his own claims are left unproven.

 So what is he up against?

• Maxwell's equations. (Mike W.) (-See sources)
• This: http://www.citycollegiate.com/workpowerenergy_Xd.htm
• The basic principle that evidence is required

 

So my general reaction is this: He was right about one thing: Everything should be questioned. However, I did my own research, and the conclusion was that Rupert Sheldrake just does not stand up to the well-established theories. Perhaps he would have convinced me if... He did actual experiments and gave actual proof?

 

 

http://www.livescience.com/29111-speed-of-light-not-constant.html

http://www.livescience.com/29111-speed-of-light-not-constant.html

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/pseudo/scipseud.htm

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ruperts-resonance/?page=1

https://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=2605

http://www.citycollegiate.com/workpowerenergy_Xd.htm

 

 

So basically, his arguments are self-defeating. He has good ideas, but not good facts.

Since you view Carl Sagan as a hero, I regret to inform you that earlier on in his career, he was embroiled in "the Velikovsky affair". He made an attempt at refuting Velikovsky and did not act in good faith. He lied about Velikovsky, misrepresented his theories, utilized the Argument From Incredulity (Velikovsky's ideas are weird and difficult to believe, therefore they're false), fired a professor named James McCanney from Cornell University for daring to conduct experiments on Velikovsky's ideas...there's even a book about Sagan's misbehavior: "Carl Sagan And Immanuel Velikovsky" by Charles Ginenthal. So I would place Sagan in the "close-minded" bigot category also, even though he was alot better at disguising it than Dawkins.

Carl Sagan? Close minded? Wonderful. And have you read his works?

 

(Basically apologizes in this video.)

Edited April 13, 2014 by King Ghidora