How do you defined Pseudo-science?

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

I would consider anything that makes some sort of claim that either cannot be tested or was tested and found not to work pseudoscience. Astrology claims to make predictions, but they don't work better than chance - pseudoscience. Astronomy makes very accurate predictions - science. Psi claims never stand up to testing any better than chance - pseudoscience. If people are doing rigorous tests of something using proper controls, calibrations, and double-blinding where appropriate, they're doing science, and it's still science even they are testing pseudoscience claims that way - but they never manage to find anything as a result. People who peddle pseudoscience, especially claims of alternative medicine, often claim that science just isn't the best way to evaluate their methods, but it works for everything that does work, so that's just a cop-out.

A pseudoscience is set of ideas based on theories put forth as scientific when they are not scientific.

Scientific theories are characterized by such things as (a) being based on empirical observation rather than the authority of some sacred text; (b) explaining a range of empirical phenomena; (c) being empirically tested in some meaningful way, usually involving testing specific predictions deduced from the theory; (d) being confirmed rather than falsified by empirical tests or with the discovery of new facts; (e) being impersonal and therefore testable by anyone regardless of personal religious or metaphysical beliefs; (f) being dynamic and fecund, leading investigators to new knowledge and understanding of the interrelatedness of the natural world rather than being static and stagnant leading to no research or development of a better understanding of anything in the natural world; (g) being approached with skepticism rather than gullibility, especially regarding paranormal forces or supernatural powers, and (h) being fallible and put forth tentatively rather than being put forth as infallible or inerrant.

Nature itself is highly predictable, that is why we have science.

Edit: I also like Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit see second link. Compare astrology and astronomy with this. See which can pass.

Edit: I'm sure the rest of us "skeptics" would like to know what your criteria on what is pseudo-science.

"In childhood our credulity serves us well. It helps us to pack, with extraordinary rapidity, our skulls full of the wisdom of our parents and our ancestors. But if we don't grow out of it in the fullness of time, our ... nature makes us a sitting target for astrologers, mediums, gurus, evangelists, and quacks. We need to replace the automatic credulity of childhood with the constructive skepticism of adult science."

-- Richard Dawkins , Unweaving the Rainbow: Science, Delusion, and the Appetite for Wonder

Maybe it's something that really is true... a science...but so far scientists haven't given it a chance to be proven that it really works....is true...by their standards. Some things can't be proven to others...only to yourself.