Proto-science is a new science that tries to establish its legitimacy, pseudo-science is actually a non-scientific claim masquerading as such
Adapted from an article by Lee Mueller “BCS Debates a Qi Gong Master,” Rational Enquirer, Vol 6, No. 4, Apr 94 (published by the British Columbia Skeptics Society)
1. Has the research field shown progress?
2. Does the method use technical words such as "vibrations" or "energy" without clearly explaining what these words mean among their many meanings?
3. Does accepting the main points of the claims require us to abandon established physical laws?
4. Do the popular articles in the field lack references to studies?
5. Is the only evidence for a theory found in nature in anecdotes?
6. Do the supporters of the subject claim that the careful experiments carried out prove the truth on the subject in question, and that it is not possible to deceive them?
7. Have the results of the above studies been repeated in other studies?
8. Do the proponents of the claims claim that they are criticized excessively and unfairly?
9. Is the subject taught only in non-accredited institutions?
10. Are the best tactics in the field decades old?
11. Do the supporters of the field use what one writer calls "factual statements" that are mostly true, but are not related to the alleged claim?
12. When they are criticized, do the defenders of the claim attack the critic instead of the criticism?
13. Do the proponents of the field rely on history (for example, this claim has been around for a long time, therefore it must be true)?
14. Does the topic show the shyness effect, meaning that sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't?
15. Do the supporters of the field turn to the argument of ignorance (there are more things in the world than you can bear to dream about in your philosophy)?
16. Do the proponents of these arguments use experts from other fields to give undue weight to their claims?
11 תגובות
to Judah
You got a little confused. My claims and those my father wrote are not part of science. rather they are meta-science. That is, the principles from which science is built. And these principles are not subject to the principles themselves.
That's why my claim about stuffed animals and mummies still stands.
Hello Noam, from time to time I receive reviews from people who do not like the fact that science is not only a collection of facts but also the body of knowledge that describes the entire course of nature and life, even if it interferes with the view of this or that person. So it is true that every day we cover a lot of scientific news, but from time to time it is also allowed to go to the deeper layer of science.
Right now I am reading the book The Slow Evolution of Darwin (new by Aryeh Nir, review and maybe also a chapter - soon) which explains how the man agonized and tried to test his theory, which he arrived at quite quickly after returning from the trip, for 20 years, while corresponding with other scientists , until he allowed himself to publish it. The problem that many have with his teachings and at the beginning of the book the author David Cowman said that Darwin did not found a new religion he was even wrong from time to time. What got in the way was the basic idea of natural selection.
Whoever has a problem with Darwin's basic ideas has a problem with the whole basic idea of science - that there is no need for higher intervention.
This example is excellent to illustrate why it is important that people know the basic truths of science and not fall into the hands of charlatans. The above article was written by people at Syracuse University and I assume they wanted to write something that everyone would understand, and not to come down on the people.
To Noam
It is not clear from your words whether you think the article is desirable or not.
In my humble opinion, the above article is highly desirable and thought-provoking.
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Avi!
You wrote an article that provoked reactions and rightly so.
Don't be impressed by this.
This is an article that lowers the site's level - and it's a shame.
In my opinion, you are engaged in a real sacred work-
Hebrew translation of science for the people.
Concentrate on that and your path will soar higher and higher.
With the blessing of the website fan
pleasantness
Cheers - what is the connection between being a scientist or not, to the quality of my response. If it was written by a scientist then would it add something??
And for Mr. Point - I must point out to you section 12:-
When they are criticized, do the defenders of the claim attack the critic instead of the criticism?
End of quote.
Note that you attack with the words "stuffed animal", "perfect idiot", people whose only desire is to cause a change in scientific thought. People like you would certainly do this to Einstein, Newton, Darwin Galileo and others who dared.
Disagree with your approach!
On this it is said:- and nevertheless, move move!
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Thinking person
Another point should have been added - a situation can be predicted in the light of defined initial data. For example - history is not a science, among other things, because of this point.
Now let us ask - is the evolution beloved by Avi Blizovsky so much - is it science or pseudo-science? Are experimental results with defined initial conditions repeated? (point 7)…. What is true is that the claims of evolution have existed for a long time - and thus qualified themselves as "truth" (point 13)... But it is true that evolution shows progress - circular progress, in its eternal return to the equal, and also in the nature of its claims (point 1)...
And in general we will live anyway and we will die anyway, eating and drinking and busy with science. All in all, it's a pleasure and you shouldn't take it so seriously.
to Judah,
You probably didn't understand something important.
The chance that the existing laws of physics are incorrect (that is, they are not in the right direction), is much smaller than the chance that the stuffed animal who tries to argue against those laws is a complete idiot.
And as rational people we must look at the probabilities of things.
To my father
A significant part of the points you mentioned are strikingly reminiscent of the articles of a certain "historian" on this site. (8, 9, 11, 13, 14, 16)
Have you decided this site is pseudoscientific?
Yehuda, although you are not a scientist, as you pretend to be, but this time, I think, you are right in your argument.
sentence correction:
Is it forbidden to dispute the existence of gravitation in the entire universe, etc...
Forbidden instead of allowed
THL
Sabdarmish Yehuda
The third claim bothers me the most:-
" 3. Does accepting the main points of the claims require us to abandon established physical laws?" . End quote.
What does this mean? After all, proto-science always tries to abolish "established" laws. Is new science allowed to work only on unfounded laws?, what is an established law?, is a dark mass that is being talked about an established law, a claim that must not be disputed?, and what about dark energy?, is it also prohibited to dispute?
Is it permissible to dispute the existence of gravitation in the entire universe, just because it is a claim that seems to be based?
This may surprise many readers, but gravitation is not a well-founded claim even at "small" cosmological distances in galaxies.
I am opposed to section 3 because it may lead to a stagnation in scientific prowess!
Sabdarmish Yehuda