How do you define pseudo-science and how do you recognize it?
For example, would you consider astrology pseudo-science? How about astronomy? Would you consider claims that all psi is performed using illusion and deceptions to be an example of pseudo-science, or do you just consider all psi to be pseudo-science? Can studies that use the scientific method and a controlled design be considered pseudo-science? How about analyses that ignore positive results because they do not fit with their world view?
Do you recognize pseudo-science when big, technical terms are used for no reason? Do you see it when the same mantra is repeated without referencing any original source material? Do you see it when negative results are ignored? Do you see it when positive results are ignored?
Please, don't reference or quote wikipedia as a source since the information in that forum is never considered a legitimate academic reference.
I would appreciate responses that stick to the question and avoid the use of inflamatory or insulting language.
☯≈♥∞☼2010-07-28T06:47:29Z
Favorite Answer
Everything in creation..whether physical or metaphysical follows a very well defined set of laws. Therefore, there can never be a pseudo-science. What we consider to be pseudo-science is simply reactions to a cause yet to be identified or correlated. It is not the science that is pseudo rather it is our mental constructs that are pseudo. Our minds get so trapped in a paradigm of the current zeitgeist that we are not able to see outside of our minds box. If we had the proper tools there would not be 1 mystery. As our consciousness awareness evolves we will be able to open our minds to the possibilities that all these supposed pseudo sciences actually hold great truth…and once the consciousness evolves internally we will see that externally this manifests in evolution in tools and ways to measure these previously names "pseudo" sciences. “As above so below – As within so without”. Change our perception, then change our tools, then the new discoveries await us. Most all scientific breakthroughs were at one time considered pseudo science. Planetary rotation around the sun, pharmaceuticals, evolution, plate tectonics, cellular biology , molecular physics…..all of these at one time were considered false sciences and very vehemently opposed by popular consensus at there time of inception.
I will not quote Wiki...but i will quote from the movie "Men in Black"
"Fifteen hundred years ago everybody knew the Earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, everybody knew the Earth was flat, and fifteen minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow. "
Pseudo science is false science (in the opinion of scientists). Real science is repeatable and can be performed in independent labs and is reported for peer review. Real science is also based on physics as it is know to date. A pseudo science may be something like levitation using only the mind. Even if it can be done it has not been subjected to scientific method to prove it.
Occult science has been tagged pseudo-science because it reaches way beyond materialistic viewpoints established by accepted scientific "facts". I suppose pseudo-science would be that which is inclusive of the Noumenal as well as the Phenomenal.
psuedo-science is when something that is not science is dressed up to appear as if it is science to give it credibility. The difference between astronomy (the study of the stars) and astrology (the study of how the stars influence our lives) is that astronomy is based on a given fact. We take the fact that the stars exist as a given. Even if everything we know about astrology is wrong, the fact that there is a basis for exploration makes it a real science. Astrology is not based on any given facts. If it is presented as a science, it is definitly a psuedo-science. The easiest way to recognize psuedo-science is to ask the question, what is the basic known fact that this science is exploring. If the basis itself is an unknown, such as "the existance of ghosts" then you know its not a real science. It doesn't matter if ghosts actually do exist or not, they have not been established as a base fact that a science can be built upon. Since we can't track the research back to a source that is provable (or disprovable), real or not, it is not science. Zoological research can all be traced back to information that is provable and has the foundation on the fact that animals exist. So zoology is a real science. It has nothing to do with the results or correctness of any particular theories. I was just arguing with creationists last week about this. Evolutionary biology, right or wrong, can be a science because it can be proven or disproven and is based on the proven fact that animals can change to adapt to changing situations of earth. Creation can not be a science, not nessessarily because scientists don't believe in God, but because the basic fact behind it (God created everything) is not provable in any scientific way.
I wouldn't consider astrology pseudo-science but rather not really a science...i mean i've personally never heard of astrology being a science...kay maybe i'm wrong, lol i'm not sure but that's just me.. :p
Lol...but anyways sorry i don't really have answers to any of your questions but i think your question is really interesting...i think it's good to be skeptical of science as well.... recently i've been having some trouble identifying what's real & what's not, & idk if its even possible to... but yeah, i thank you for your question :)
LOL @ your last line.
~Haha omg that's so funny the CC i currently go to, a lot of the teachers use wiki as a referance...& it's hella funny to me cause when i went to high school they always told us never to use wiki as a source. When i went there while i was in high school i was so surprised that they did....lol....anyways i'm getting a lil off topic here...i better dip. :p
Peace
Edit: v---v LOL @ your sources, that is very true...also the quote from men in black, very true....lol