Science or Pseudoscience?

[Fernanda]

This is a reprint of a wonderful thread from one of our members: James R...he moderates the math&physics forum at sciforums.org (http://sciforums.com/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=33). All credit is his!!

Original Link (http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=18984)

================================================
Science and Pseudoscience - A Primer
This thread is a brief summary of what I believe are the primary differences between Science and Pseudoscience. I hope that this will help people draw the line for themselves when they are confronted with new ideas on this forum and elsewhere.

First, a couple of brief definitions, courtesy of Michael Shermer:

Science: A set of methods designed to describe and interpret observed or inferred phenomena … aimed at building a testable body of knowledge open to rejection or confirmation.
Psuedoscience: Claims presented in such a way that they appear scientific even though they lack supporting evidence and plausibility.

Already, these definitions suggest some things to look for in evaluating claims. Scientific claims should be testable and open to rejection by contrary evidence. Pseudoscientific claims are made to appear scientific, often for ulterior motives such as monetary gain, political or ideological purposes, or to gain personal fame for their proponent(s).

Here are some things to ask when you come across a new idea:

1. Is it testable?

If an idea is claimed to be scientific, there should be a way to test the idea, either by making certain observations and gathering evidence or by performing certain experiments or other tests. Ideas which are not testable may actually be correct, but they are not scientific, because science aims to build a testable body of knowledge.

2. Is it repeatable/reliable?

If a scientific fact is true, it should remain true regardless of who tests it and when they test it. In contrast, pseudoscientific ideas are often unreliable. Psychic powers seldom work in the presence of skeptics, and they are never producible on demand. Moreover, only some people can use these powers, apparently. In contrast, given appropriate methods and equipment, anybody can verify the speed of light.

3. Is it supported by evidence?

All science is supported by evidence. In contrast, we are usually asked to accept pseudoscience on the basis of somebody\'s authority. Thus, psuedoscientists will often tell you how long they have spent working on their pet theory. They will tell you that many prominent people reject relativity, so it must be false. They will tell you that so many people have seen UFOs that they must exist, but when you ask them to show you convincing evidence of a UFO they cannot do so.

4. Who has the onus of proof?

In science, the onus of proof regarding a claim is on the claimant. If I say that relativity is wrong, it is up to me to support my arguments. If I claim to have invented a water-driven engine, it is up to me to demonstrate a working model. In contrast, pseudoscientists always say \"Prove me wrong.\" They claim the moon is made of green cheese and expect somebody else to prove it isn\'t so. Science expects them to produce a sample of moon cheese or other evidence which supports their claim.

5. Is it well delineated?

Most advances in science have implications in a rather narrow field, though there are a few exceptions. In contrast, almost invariably, pseudoscientific theories will claim to revolutionise at least one major field of study, such as cosmology or evolution. Psuedoscientists always attack the most established and high-profile physical theories - relativity, quantum mechanics, evolution. They never attempt to revise one small area, such as providing a new measurement of the half-life of plutonium.

6. Is it open to change?

Scientific ideas are always open to change when new evidence comes along. For example, the big bang theory was shown to have a number of problems as a result of observations by astronomers. The theory was changed to include an inflationary period, and the modified theory solves many of the problems. No scientific theory claims to be the last word on something. Since science is tied to evidence, new evidence always has the potential to change the science.

In contrast, pseudoscientists tend to hold onto their ideas, even after they have been convincingly rebutted by argument or evidence. They also tend to be selective as to what evidence they consider valid; they select what supports their theories and ignore what is inconvenient.

7. Is it, at least in principle, falsifiable?

All good scientific theories are, in principle, falsifiable. When a scientific idea is proposed, the person putting it forward will usually suggest tests and/or observations which could show whether the idea is wrong or right.

Pseudoscientific ideas, on the other hand, are often deliberately constructed so as to be untestable and therefore unfalsifiable.

8. Is it realistic?

Scientists are (usually) prepared to accept what the world throws at them, even if it means throwing out cherished ideas in the face of new evidence. Psuedoscience tends to be full of wishful thinking. Whilst it would be great if we all had psychic powers, scientists won\'t believe in them without good evidence - but pseudoscientists will.
------

If, after asking these questions, an idea still seems plausible, then chances are that it is scientific. That doesn\'t mean it is right, of course - that depends on the evidence.


__________________
JR

[Fernanda]

This is a reprint of a wonderful thread from one of our members: James R...he moderates the math&physics forum at sciforums.org (http://sciforums.com/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=33). All credit is his!!

Original Link (http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=18984)

================================================
Science and Pseudoscience - A Primer
This thread is a brief summary of what I believe are the primary differences between Science and Pseudoscience. I hope that this will help people draw the line for themselves when they are confronted with new ideas on this forum and elsewhere.

First, a couple of brief definitions, courtesy of Michael Shermer:

Science: A set of methods designed to describe and interpret observed or inferred phenomena … aimed at building a testable body of knowledge open to rejection or confirmation.
Psuedoscience: Claims presented in such a way that they appear scientific even though they lack supporting evidence and plausibility.

Already, these definitions suggest some things to look for in evaluating claims. Scientific claims should be testable and open to rejection by contrary evidence. Pseudoscientific claims are made to appear scientific, often for ulterior motives such as monetary gain, political or ideological purposes, or to gain personal fame for their proponent(s).

Here are some things to ask when you come across a new idea:

1. Is it testable?

If an idea is claimed to be scientific, there should be a way to test the idea, either by making certain observations and gathering evidence or by performing certain experiments or other tests. Ideas which are not testable may actually be correct, but they are not scientific, because science aims to build a testable body of knowledge.

2. Is it repeatable/reliable?

If a scientific fact is true, it should remain true regardless of who tests it and when they test it. In contrast, pseudoscientific ideas are often unreliable. Psychic powers seldom work in the presence of skeptics, and they are never producible on demand. Moreover, only some people can use these powers, apparently. In contrast, given appropriate methods and equipment, anybody can verify the speed of light.

3. Is it supported by evidence?

All science is supported by evidence. In contrast, we are usually asked to accept pseudoscience on the basis of somebody\'s authority. Thus, psuedoscientists will often tell you how long they have spent working on their pet theory. They will tell you that many prominent people reject relativity, so it must be false. They will tell you that so many people have seen UFOs that they must exist, but when you ask them to show you convincing evidence of a UFO they cannot do so.

4. Who has the onus of proof?

In science, the onus of proof regarding a claim is on the claimant. If I say that relativity is wrong, it is up to me to support my arguments. If I claim to have invented a water-driven engine, it is up to me to demonstrate a working model. In contrast, pseudoscientists always say \"Prove me wrong.\" They claim the moon is made of green cheese and expect somebody else to prove it isn\'t so. Science expects them to produce a sample of moon cheese or other evidence which supports their claim.

5. Is it well delineated?

Most advances in science have implications in a rather narrow field, though there are a few exceptions. In contrast, almost invariably, pseudoscientific theories will claim to revolutionise at least one major field of study, such as cosmology or evolution. Psuedoscientists always attack the most established and high-profile physical theories - relativity, quantum mechanics, evolution. They never attempt to revise one small area, such as providing a new measurement of the half-life of plutonium.

6. Is it open to change?

Scientific ideas are always open to change when new evidence comes along. For example, the big bang theory was shown to have a number of problems as a result of observations by astronomers. The theory was changed to include an inflationary period, and the modified theory solves many of the problems. No scientific theory claims to be the last word on something. Since science is tied to evidence, new evidence always has the potential to change the science.

In contrast, pseudoscientists tend to hold onto their ideas, even after they have been convincingly rebutted by argument or evidence. They also tend to be selective as to what evidence they consider valid; they select what supports their theories and ignore what is inconvenient.

7. Is it, at least in principle, falsifiable?

All good scientific theories are, in principle, falsifiable. When a scientific idea is proposed, the person putting it forward will usually suggest tests and/or observations which could show whether the idea is wrong or right.

Pseudoscientific ideas, on the other hand, are often deliberately constructed so as to be untestable and therefore unfalsifiable.

8. Is it realistic?

Scientists are (usually) prepared to accept what the world throws at them, even if it means throwing out cherished ideas in the face of new evidence. Psuedoscience tends to be full of wishful thinking. Whilst it would be great if we all had psychic powers, scientists won\'t believe in them without good evidence - but pseudoscientists will.
------

If, after asking these questions, an idea still seems plausible, then chances are that it is scientific. That doesn\'t mean it is right, of course - that depends on the evidence.


__________________
JR

[Fernanda]

This is a reprint of a wonderful thread from one of our members: James R...he moderates the math&physics forum at sciforums.org (http://sciforums.com/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=33). All credit is his!!

Original Link (http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=18984)

================================================
Science and Pseudoscience - A Primer
This thread is a brief summary of what I believe are the primary differences between Science and Pseudoscience. I hope that this will help people draw the line for themselves when they are confronted with new ideas on this forum and elsewhere.

First, a couple of brief definitions, courtesy of Michael Shermer:

Science: A set of methods designed to describe and interpret observed or inferred phenomena … aimed at building a testable body of knowledge open to rejection or confirmation.
Psuedoscience: Claims presented in such a way that they appear scientific even though they lack supporting evidence and plausibility.

Already, these definitions suggest some things to look for in evaluating claims. Scientific claims should be testable and open to rejection by contrary evidence. Pseudoscientific claims are made to appear scientific, often for ulterior motives such as monetary gain, political or ideological purposes, or to gain personal fame for their proponent(s).

Here are some things to ask when you come across a new idea:

1. Is it testable?

If an idea is claimed to be scientific, there should be a way to test the idea, either by making certain observations and gathering evidence or by performing certain experiments or other tests. Ideas which are not testable may actually be correct, but they are not scientific, because science aims to build a testable body of knowledge.

2. Is it repeatable/reliable?

If a scientific fact is true, it should remain true regardless of who tests it and when they test it. In contrast, pseudoscientific ideas are often unreliable. Psychic powers seldom work in the presence of skeptics, and they are never producible on demand. Moreover, only some people can use these powers, apparently. In contrast, given appropriate methods and equipment, anybody can verify the speed of light.

3. Is it supported by evidence?

All science is supported by evidence. In contrast, we are usually asked to accept pseudoscience on the basis of somebody\'s authority. Thus, psuedoscientists will often tell you how long they have spent working on their pet theory. They will tell you that many prominent people reject relativity, so it must be false. They will tell you that so many people have seen UFOs that they must exist, but when you ask them to show you convincing evidence of a UFO they cannot do so.

4. Who has the onus of proof?

In science, the onus of proof regarding a claim is on the claimant. If I say that relativity is wrong, it is up to me to support my arguments. If I claim to have invented a water-driven engine, it is up to me to demonstrate a working model. In contrast, pseudoscientists always say \"Prove me wrong.\" They claim the moon is made of green cheese and expect somebody else to prove it isn\'t so. Science expects them to produce a sample of moon cheese or other evidence which supports their claim.

5. Is it well delineated?

Most advances in science have implications in a rather narrow field, though there are a few exceptions. In contrast, almost invariably, pseudoscientific theories will claim to revolutionise at least one major field of study, such as cosmology or evolution. Psuedoscientists always attack the most established and high-profile physical theories - relativity, quantum mechanics, evolution. They never attempt to revise one small area, such as providing a new measurement of the half-life of plutonium.

6. Is it open to change?

Scientific ideas are always open to change when new evidence comes along. For example, the big bang theory was shown to have a number of problems as a result of observations by astronomers. The theory was changed to include an inflationary period, and the modified theory solves many of the problems. No scientific theory claims to be the last word on something. Since science is tied to evidence, new evidence always has the potential to change the science.

In contrast, pseudoscientists tend to hold onto their ideas, even after they have been convincingly rebutted by argument or evidence. They also tend to be selective as to what evidence they consider valid; they select what supports their theories and ignore what is inconvenient.

7. Is it, at least in principle, falsifiable?

All good scientific theories are, in principle, falsifiable. When a scientific idea is proposed, the person putting it forward will usually suggest tests and/or observations which could show whether the idea is wrong or right.

Pseudoscientific ideas, on the other hand, are often deliberately constructed so as to be untestable and therefore unfalsifiable.

8. Is it realistic?

Scientists are (usually) prepared to accept what the world throws at them, even if it means throwing out cherished ideas in the face of new evidence. Psuedoscience tends to be full of wishful thinking. Whilst it would be great if we all had psychic powers, scientists won\'t believe in them without good evidence - but pseudoscientists will.
------

If, after asking these questions, an idea still seems plausible, then chances are that it is scientific. That doesn\'t mean it is right, of course - that depends on the evidence.


__________________
JR

[moi]

Just joined, got onto this Forum and enjoyed the first posting I have looked at. James R did a remarkable job with a too-often passed-by subject matter. Thanks to Fernanda for providing it. Nice way to start my first visit.

moi

[moi]

Just joined, got onto this Forum and enjoyed the first posting I have looked at. James R did a remarkable job with a too-often passed-by subject matter. Thanks to Fernanda for providing it. Nice way to start my first visit.

moi

[moi]

Just joined, got onto this Forum and enjoyed the first posting I have looked at. James R did a remarkable job with a too-often passed-by subject matter. Thanks to Fernanda for providing it. Nice way to start my first visit.

moi

[Fernanda]

and here is to many more visits! :beer:

:grin:

If you want to read more on the subject matter...see James Randi\'s site...though I don\'t think James R. is THE James Randi...

www.randi.org (http://www.randi.org)

[Fernanda]

and here is to many more visits! :beer:

:grin:

If you want to read more on the subject matter...see James Randi\'s site...though I don\'t think James R. is THE James Randi...

www.randi.org (http://www.randi.org)

[Fernanda]

and here is to many more visits! :beer:

:grin:

If you want to read more on the subject matter...see James Randi\'s site...though I don\'t think James R. is THE James Randi...

www.randi.org (http://www.randi.org)

[Spirit of Science aka SOS]

How do we address issues like this?

http://www.nsa.gov/docs/efoia/released/ufo/ufo20.pdf

Of course this is only one of thousands.

[Spirit of Science aka SOS]

How do we address issues like this?

http://www.nsa.gov/docs/efoia/released/ufo/ufo20.pdf

Of course this is only one of thousands.

[Spirit of Science aka SOS]

How do we address issues like this?

http://www.nsa.gov/docs/efoia/released/ufo/ufo20.pdf

Of course this is only one of thousands.

[Fernanda]

Easy:

Iraqi\'s on scuds high on hashish...trying to attack Iran :lol:

[Fernanda]

Easy:

Iraqi\'s on scuds high on hashish...trying to attack Iran :lol:

[Fernanda]

Easy:

Iraqi\'s on scuds high on hashish...trying to attack Iran :lol:

[Eremite]

By the way in the USSR cybernetics and genetics have been considered for a long time as pseudosciences.

Eremite

[arivero]

Regretly, this definition of science is not exhaustive. It is true that science has the characteristics mentioned in the article, but it lacks one very very important point:

0) It is the thing done by scientists.

The union of career path plus peer review has done emphasis in this point, which perhaps was a lesser question in the XVII-XIXth centuries. Now besides using scientific procedures and having a working knowledge of the field, you are requested to known publisher jargon and to follow the herd scent. On the contrary you are expected to work ten times harder than the average scientist, perhaps more.

[Edited on 6-9-2004 by arivero]

[lysdexia]

Regretfully, there is no distinction in the first post between science and scientism.

Is psychology/psychiatry science or pseudoscience?

[Fernanda]

very subjective sometimes indeed... at least in practice today. Research is better...

[polyb]

How about the topic of cold fusion? It has made a comeback in the news lately and apparently there is some anomolous behavior going on. By what I have found it is still contoversial and the DOE review panel is pretty split on what is really happening. What are you guys thinking?

[editor]

Wait until the dust has settled. Then jump in on the winning side.

[polyb]

Originally posted by editor
Wait until the dust has settled. Then jump in on the winning side.

That sounds like a plan!:P

[Xerxes314]

If somebody had just come up with the idea for cold fusion yesterday, it wouldn\'t be that crazy an idea. Can a matrix of palladium drive hydrogen atoms together enough to make them fuse? Prolly not, but worth a try.

They tried. It doesn\'t work. Give it up already.

Xerxes

[polyb]

Originally posted by Xerxes314
If somebody had just come up with the idea for cold fusion yesterday, it wouldn\'t be that crazy an idea. Can a matrix of palladium drive hydrogen atoms together enough to make them fuse? Prolly not, but worth a try.

They tried. It doesn\'t work. Give it up already.

Xerxes

I guess that depends on who you talk to, apparently the Navy has bee examining this for the last ten years and they seem to think it is worth the investigation. Besides, as far as I can tell, the research is pretty cheap, except in examining the palladium anodes. So be it, that what science is all about! I say keep looking, what else we got to lose?

I\'m reminded of what is now being called \'bubble cavitated fusion\' which has proven to be a feasible means of producing fusion. Of course, just a few years ago a lot of people thought that sonoluminescence what just an interesting phenomena that wouldn\'t yeild anything useful. Wrong! So it goes, one never really knows unitl all avenues or research fundings are exhausted!

[Fernanda]

you know...it\'s one thing to have a catalyst bring two atoms together. But I fail to see how a catalyst overcome electron clouds and EM repulsion to fuse cores.

just can\'t see it. call me a non-believer...well, yeah, go ahead and call me that.

if there was an easier way for the universe to have fusion occur without the extraordinary amount time and energy necessary to even begin the process...well, you know the rest, bottom line is the Sun :duh:

[polyb]

Originally posted by Fernanda
you know...it\'s one thing to have a catalyst bring two atoms together. But I fail to see how a catalyst overcome electron clouds and EM repulsion to fuse cores.

just can\'t see it. call me a non-believer...well, yeah, go ahead and call me that.

if there was an easier way for the universe to have fusion occur without the extraordinary amount time and energy necessary to even begin the process...well, you know the rest, bottom line is the Sun :duh:

The only thing I can say with any confidence is that there seems to be an anomolous behavoir that is not understood. It has been verified that they managed to get more heat out than they put in, but the mechanisms are not well understood. In my opinion it does merit further investigation. Here is a link to the DOE write up from last year:

Report of the Review of Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (http://www.science.doe.gov/Sub/Newsroom/News_Releases/DOE-SC/2004/low_energy/)

You can link to the peer review commentary from there. Apparently it is still mired in controversy and the debate has not been settled. Unfortunately this research has been blemished by the media spectacle created 16 years ago. So there you have it, a phenomena that is not understood with a bad reputation. Things could be worse though. I dont think this will yeild any promising sources of power in the near future but it is still worth looking into. The \'bubble cavitation fusion\' seems to be a better canidate for practical applications, IMHO.

Speculation: I understand that you think that fusion can only happen when sufficient kinetic energies are achieved, but what if we are wrong? What if there are small discrepencies in those energy landscapes that could allow this to happen? Would a Kline-Gordan type of description theoretically predict that? I really dont know. But this does make for great beer talk! :beer::D

[Fernanda]

let\'s move it to a new thread...I believe there is an old buried thread we can resurrect about cold fusion.

[polyb]

You have the power oh anointed one! :beer::cool:

[Fernanda]

I don\'t see you bowing ;) haha jk :p

[polyb]

I only bow to drink me guinness!:P