The distinction between science and pseudo-science is a problematic issue
Climate change deniers are accused of engaging in pseudo-science. A similar accusation is hurled at creationists who support the idea of intelligent design, at astrologers, astrologers, at psychologists, at practitioners of alternative medicine and at times at anyone who strays far from the scientific high road. But defining the boundary between science and pseudoscience is actually a notorious problem littered with controversial definitions. This is because both categories are too broad and their boundaries are blurred, and because the term "pseudo-science" is misused as a label that people attach to any claim that they do not support for some reason. In his book "Nonsense on Crutches", which was published in 2010 (published by the University of Chicago), the philosopher of science Massimo Pigliucci admits that there is no "litmus paper" that differentiates between the fields because "the boundaries separating science, non-science and pseudo-science are much more blurred And much more permeable than Schoeffer (or, for that matter, most scientists) would have us believe.”
It was Karl Popper who first defined the "problem of demarcation": finding a criterion that could differentiate between experimental science, such as the successful test of Einstein's theory of general relativity in 1919, and pseudo-science, such as Freud's theories, whose followers only looked for corroborating evidence and ignored refuting cases . Einstein's theory would have been disproved if the solar eclipse data had shown as required that the Sun's gravitational field bends the light rays coming from a distant star. However, Freud's theories cannot be disproved because they do not contain any testable hypothesis that allows for refutation. As we know, Popper established the "ability to refute" as the absolute demarcation criterion.
The problem is that many sciences are irrefutable, such as string theory, the neurology of consciousness, large economic models, and the extraterrestrial life hypothesis. In the search for extraterrestrial life, how can we ever say that ET doesn't exist if we don't examine every planet around every sun in every galaxy?
The historian of science from Princeton University, Michael D. Gordin, adds on the subject in his soon to be published book "The Pseudo-Science Wars" (University of Chicago, 2012): "No person in the history of the world has ever identified himself as a pseudo-scientist. No one wakes up in the morning and thinks to himself, 'I'm going to go to my pseudo-laboratory and perform some pseudo-experiments in it to try to confirm my pseudo-theories with pseudo-facts.'" Gordin documents with detailed examples "that individual scientists (as opposed to the monolithic 'scientific community' ) classify a certain Torah as 'pseudo-science' only when in their view it threatens them. They are not necessarily threatened by the new ideas for themselves, but by the threat they represent to the authority of science, to the accessibility of science to resources or to any other broad social trend. If you don't feel threatened, there is no reason to attack what is perceived as pseudo-science. Instead, just get on with the job and happily ignore the crazies."
I call creationism "pseudo-science" not because its followers engage in bad science - they do not engage in science at all - but because they threaten science education in the US, they break through the wall that separates church and state and they confuse the public about the very nature of The theory of evolution and about the way in which science is conducted.
And here, perhaps, is a practical criterion for solving the demarcation problem: the conduct of the scientists as it is reflected in the practical usefulness of the idea. That is, does the new revolutionary idea arouse a desire among active scientists to adopt it in their research programs, rule out new research directions, lead to new discoveries or influence prevailing hypotheses, models, paradigms or worldviews? If not, it is likely pseudo-science.
We can draw the line between science and pseudo-science not according to the essence of science but according to what science does. Science is a series of methods designed to test hypotheses and build theories. If a community of scientists actively adopts a new idea, and if this idea spreads in the field and integrates into research that creates useful knowledge that is expressed in lectures, publications, and especially in new research and research directions, it is likely that it is science.
This criterion of demarcation, based on usefulness, has the advantage that it comes from below and not from above, it grants equality and not privileges, it is impartial and does not discriminate on the basis of prejudice. Let's let the consumers of science in the marketplace of ideas determine what is considered good science, starting with the scientists themselves through editors, educators and readers. And as for possible consumers of pseudo-science, for that purpose there are skeptics, but also in this market, as always, the buyer beware.
About the author
Michael Shermer is the publisher of Skeptic magazine (www.skeptic.com his new book is The Believing Mind. Follow him on Twitter: @michaelshermer
46 תגובות
Shapira, this is exactly where you are wrong. The rotation is not relative. And this is precisely the change that Einstein changed his mind about since his early days when he did believe in Mach's concept regarding relative rotation.
The rotation is not relative.
In fact, if you check carefully, according to Einstein the spell actually succeeded, because the rotation is relative and it doesn't matter if Sabsavish is rotating relative to the magicians or they are relative to him, and it turns out that he saw them rotating exactly as he planned. (Did we say something about rose-colored glasses?)
According to Mach, the rotation is absolute, and the magic failed. wow wow
Is it possible that Sebasmish is more genius than Einstein?
Well, gentlemen, it's time to continue the story.
Sabsavish remembered a special spell he read about when he was a boy. This spell has been written and rewritten for many years and the purpose of the spell is to spin any enemy in a spiral for a long time and thus silence them. The spell goes like this (be careful, dear readers, not to say it out loud):
Sob na sob so and so
A great miracle will be here
A great miracle will be here
Sob na sob so and so
Gyroscopes
sub
sub
Sob!
He sat quietly and thought. It was known that the first line of the spell was added over the years because the spell didn't always work. This addition was not liked by some respected magicians in the association who claimed that a shorter, more effective spell should be found, one that would work in any situation.
Why don't I make up the spell myself? Sabsavish said in his heart. And so he sat in his house and for days invented his renewed version of the spiral spell. He decided to present the renewed spell to his fellow magicians in a spectacular show. The news about Sebasvish's show quickly spread by word of mouth and everyone was eagerly anticipating it.
The big day has arrived. Sabsavish learned the spell by heart so he wouldn't have any mistakes. This is the big opportunity he's been waiting for all his life. From now on he knew that he too would be told in legends. In the early evening, all the members of the circle gathered in the cabin where they used to meet and waited for Sabsabish. Finally he entered the room, and the room was full of anticipation and excitement.
At first, Sabsavish reviewed the long history of the spiral spell, but quickly got to the spicy part of the performance, the part where he would say the new spell and make everyone in the room spin around him in the air.
And when the moment came, everyone fell silent. Absolute silence fell in the room. And Sabbish began to recite:
Abra Kadabra
Billy Focus
Sub na sub
Sob!
And while reciting Sabsavish began to move around in place, slowly at first, but as the seconds passed faster and faster. Along with the rotation, he waved his hands in long movements as if he was floating in the air and thus he saw all his friends going round and round around him. And so in complete madness he called out "Look, gentlemen, I'm a magician! I'm a magician!" But his friends looked at him and couldn't help but burst into a loud laugh that was heard all over the village.
And so Sabsavish continued his life, convinced that one day he would find the right spell and his friends in the circle of magicians would still cheer him on.
Good Gandalf, good guy.
I also thought about what you left out of the plot. In fact, Sabhamshish discovered the pink magic glasses, which anyone who wears them can see reality as he sees fit. Therefore in his eyes, he is actually the magician and they are the peddlers. And so the legend ends:
….and when the audience assigns zeroes
flock to see the wizards,
he wears the glasses,
and waving to the crowds.
And he laughs heartily:
"Everyone comes to see me!"
Now you tell me:
Who is the real magician?
Guy, that's beautiful. I liked :-).
Just don't forget that later on that sabbachmish isn't going around quietly in the villages showing off his talent.
What happens is that Sabahmishish as part of his reading in the books, and also thanks to personal knowledge passed down in tradition, came up with a simple but interesting magic. This charm when applied to certain people, makes those people sit down in all his other simple charms. They fall in love with him and become his fan base. Every time the magician performs a seemingly simple magic (terribly simple magic that appears in the introductory chapters and the history of magic books in the library of the Wizarding Society) some of the fan base would immediately jump up and come and kiss the magician's butt. And the magician is filled with infinite pleasure. That's all he wanted.
Every novice magician knows that this is a dangerous psychocosmic state. False thoughts are not long in arriving and the magician is bewitched into thinking that he is the greatest magician of his generation.
Once upon a time in a distant land there was an association of magicians. To this association belonged everyone of the wizarding world. Names like Tynionus the Great, Legliostos and of course the Gellert Sunshine were one of the pillars and leaders of the association that prided itself on a long tradition of magicians. Of course, it was not easy to be accepted into this association. Many years of training and theory studies in the best schools in Wonderland were a prerequisite for anyone who dreamed of the great honor of becoming a full-fledged magician. From this association and only from it came the amazing magic and spells in the world. Raining down green pearls, turning a mouse into a fearsome dragon and growing forests in an instant are just some of the wonders and miracles they concocted and invented in the respected association.
A few individuals of virtue, those known as those with the spark, surpassed their teachers and predecessors and invented a new spell stronger and more magical than any magic seen before them.
As one could imagine such an object of admiration and respect attracted the attention of the large crowds who marveled at the wonders of the association and its beauty. Folktales and legends were woven around the fallen from the association that the heroes had. Not infrequently, so-and-so would rise up claiming that he too belonged to the same celebrated group and had an innovative magic in his hand, hoping to win world fame, but so-and-so became unknown and, like the rest of the person, was forgotten as never existed.
In a remote suburb somewhere at the northern edge of Eretz-Pela, there lived a kind gentleman named Sebasvish Shemshiye. Sabsavish was an avid magician. Although he spent most of his life practicing his profession, a peddler in the village market, in his free time he liked to read about the association of magicians and the latest miracles. He often pondered how it felt to be a great wizard. In the dreams he was also a full-fledged magician and people were amazed by his magic.
One day he got up suddenly and felt a strange sensation. How is it that a witch lover like me never satiates his lust? he asked himself. Maybe I too have the spark, wondered... more to come
Yehuda,
Before doubting, one must understand what is being doubted. Just doubting is stupid.
And the problem is that stupid people are not able to understand. And so they just cast doubt just to look smart.
Whoever is stupid according to the definition is stupid in general.
point
Without entering into a debate about your last claim, I will only point out that since you are throwing out a sweeping generalization, you are not making a good impression.
point
How are you able to say such stupid things? After all, all science is built on casting doubt and postulating new explanations for things that are not universally accepted.
Only the one who doesn't doubt is the smart one for you?, do all the rest have psychological disorders?
Maybe you have feelings of inferiority and prefer to live in the image of others?
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
And again, it is interesting to note that all those who oppose science are simply stupid people.
They have such a hard time with their stupidity that they are willing to sacrifice the natural honesty of common sense to make themselves feel special.
In short, it is a psychological disorder that results from feelings of great inferiority.
Hebrew reader:
Although science actually has something to say in the areas you brought as an example, this does not change the fact that there are things that science does not know.
How does this relate to the article?
It is not!
the other self:
You are a hopeless prattle.
Can you point to one (one!) instance where I called someone who didn't (dis)honestly earn it a liar?!
Pseudo science never becomes science because the difference between science and pseudo science is in the method and motivations and not in the claims.
It can certainly happen that a claim that was once voiced by pseudo-politicians will eventually be investigated and found to be true in terms of science too, but this will not make what the pseudo-scientists did into science.
Even when Yehuda "explains" about dark matter, he deals with pseudo-science, even though dark matter apparently exists.
Israel:
Yehuda's sales attempts bother me a lot.
This website is intended to provide scientific insights and not misrepresentations.
Many people read it, not all of them are able to distinguish when a claim is nonsense.
Yehuda tirelessly tries to work on these people and does not shy away from obsessively repeating things that have been explained to him in thousands of ways that are wrong.
ravine.
What bothers you Judah?
He does not occupy airtime at the expense of others. Those who don't want to read his words can scroll on.
Do you think he doesn't believe what he writes?
It actually adds color to the site.
Besides, it's been a long time since we heard some nice rhymes from you, and we really miss you. Something like: "The diary of a global warming denier".
Here's an example:
"I received a somewhat disturbing report, the glaciers have melted,
I deleted a few zeros, so you don't get angry."
Yuya, I ask..
You must be better at this than me.
Ultimately, in the era of freedom of information, both science and pseudo-science are widely presented and accessible to anyone willing to read, and the reader, each and every one of the readers, is the one who decides which theory to adopt and what to believe. With all due respect to science, there are quite a few areas in which the scientists are still blindly groping for refutations or proofs of one theory or another, or areas in which they do not have an unequivocal "scientific" statement in advance. Fields such as philosophy, ethics and art.
Another phenomenon that deserves to be mentioned in the context of pseudoscience is the phenomenon of compulsive bothering.
Please refer to the following article from the "Eyal Kora":
http://www.haayal.co.il/story_1571
Sabdarmish is not alone, there were many like him and unfortunately there will probably be more.
The article here describes a process - how pseudo science becomes science (or not) - from the beginning of the idea, the formulation of the theoretical assumption, through the practice to the proof - in one word: Zemlvis.
The scientific community (at that time) disagreed with him about the theory and the practice even though they brought excellent results.
He was defined as a fool, a charlatan and even dangerous to the public because of his explanation of small animals that cause disease and death. And all this because "science" at that time did not have the tools to test these ideas.
Mikkel would probably call him a liar...
To all science lovers - science has a razor-sharp edge and wild ideas such as the 11 dimensions of string theory or the fact that there are people who heal from placebos (I have already conducted the discussion on all this several times on the website - thanks for the support from the skeptic...) are tested on this razor's edge.
All these ideas can be defined as pseudo-science, kekyonic science, the science of science or whatever all the respectable mainstream scientists who are threatened by new ideas want to call them - this does not change the fact that this is how "science" evolves and develops. A little open-mindedness wouldn't hurt all anal retentives.
Regarding what Gilad wrote about astrology - this is a real example of an idea that turned out to be nonsense - exactly for the reason he wrote it.
Israel:
I think you're wrong.
It is not a coincidence that they make sure to avoid any criticism.
If there is something you are convinced is true - you should be able to defend it against criticism honestly and not through social exercises.
The one who avoids knows that he has no answer to the criticism, but his agenda prevents him from giving a straight answer.
There is a difference between telling a lie and not telling the truth. The difference is intentional.
Aristotle was not lying when he said that bodies of different weights will fall at different speeds. He was wrong, but he believed what he said.
It seems to me that most pseudo-mazo people are in the second category, and are also willing to die for the sanctification of what they believe in, even though they are probably wrong. In a truth machine test, for example, most of them will find truth-tellers to justify a wrong theory, as opposed to charlatans who will find liars.
This is also true for some of the writers here.
Year:
Yehuda did discredit science and claimed that it was merely a sociological phenomenon.
It also fits his agenda: after all, he has been trying to sell delusional theories to the public for years and the comments here are another indirect attempt to minimize in the eyes of mankind the significance of the criticism leveled at his nonsense.
There are those who discuss and debate the question of what is pseudoscience and what is science.
For some reason, they will always be in favor of expanding the boundaries of science into the pseudo so that science as they define it will include their ideas and thus they will perceive themselves as scientists. It is important for them to look smart. This is actually the goal to be seen and heard.
Wiki puts it nicely:
Pseudoscience is a claim, belief, or practice which is presented as scientific, but which does not adhere to a valid scientific method, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status
Yehuda, you are confusing some things,
There is legitimate scientific debate and there is pseudo-science,
The first occurs between competing scientific theories regardless of which one is more popular and can be decided between them by confirming or refuting even if this happens in the future but there is no doubt that this is possible.
Whereas the second, can be supported by semi-scientific theories, ones that have been disproved, or that cannot be proven (even in the future).
Of course you are right that scientists who support the wrong theory will not give up easily and it is good that way, this is exactly how science is improved, this insistence only does science good, so in fact only theories that have passed the most rigorous tests of science's peers become scientific facts and theories.
And one more thing, a disproved scientific theory does not become pseudo-science, only a wrong theory or an insufficiently comprehensive theory (like Newton for example). To become a pseudo-science you need followers of the theory who will continue to believe in its correctness after it has been disproved.
Yehuda did not discredit science, at most he made unsuccessful claims. Here are two cases that seem more appropriate to me: Mendel's genetic theory was published in scientific journals and was ignored for 40 years. Wagner's tectonic plate theory was also long-term ignored.
Antal
It is stated in the definition "but according to the opinion of the majority of the scientific community they do not meet the requirements of the scientific method" meaning the majority determines what is scientific and what is not. Hence it is possible that the definition I found is incorrect, if so I would love to hear another definition.
good week
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Sabdarmish, in your first comment you said "If this definition is acceptable, then the majority of the scientific community is the one who determines the existence of a source as pseudo-science. Hence, anything that denies what is accepted in science is immediately defined as pseudo-science by the general rule.
The first sentence may be true, the problem is that your conclusion in the second sentence simply does not follow from it (logically), because not everything that negates what is accepted in science necessarily does not meet the requirements of the scientific method.
"Pseudo-science" is not another name for what is not accepted by the scientific community *at the moment*, that is, scientists can disagree on different theories as in the case of Shechtman, for example, but regarding the scientific method there is a fairly clear consensus regarding what is considered quality scientific research and what is not ( Although here too the standards change as the technological ability develops - and that's probably why the definition you found is based on the "opinion of the majority of the scientific community" instead of some absolute constant).
See how great the power of science is. So many slanderers and fanatics come to him to destroy him and they can't.
Mr. S., there are many like you, one could say that the majority are like you. The majority think that what they think is true. 98% think they are smarter than average. Most don't have real self-criticism because they don't have the necessary humility to say "I was wrong".
Luckily the mind is stronger than the lobbying and mission that people like you try to do for their ideas.
Yehuda:
You mean people who don't know that Aristotle's theory was not science in the current sense of the word?
You mean people who don't know that the acceleration of the expansion of the universe was never ignored that you fabricated?
I hope that after I wrote my response there are no such people among the science readers.
Mikel
And if you define my responses here as a misunderstanding of the most basic things, and as a distortion of history,
So it's appropriate that he no longer responded to your comments here.
I would be happy to respond to the words of others who know how to value my words more.
Shabbat Shalom
Sabdarmish Yehuda
I received personal permission from the creator to translate it into Hebrew and post it on my blog, he sounds very happy, I don't know what that means in terms of "the scholar" but I didn't get the impression that there was any problem for him. I even added his name in the corner of the photos, at his humble request:
"Yep, I created it a couple of months ago. You can certainly translate it–I'd be honored. You don't need to give me credit (but I'm thinking of stamping a tiny "jerfoo" in the corner). "
monument:
A friend sent me a link to this article of yours a few days ago and I replied that my father had reached an agreement with you according to which we could publish your articles on the science website and that we intend, of course, to include the article in question as well.
In fact, if there wasn't a question of copyright here, we probably would have already copied this article here.
The copyright question regarding the text has been settled between you and my father, but my question is about the illustrations of the story of the two rabbits.
Can we use it here?
Speaking of science vs. pseudo-science, there is a very nice cartoon/analogy that has been floating around the internet lately. It appears in a translated version into Hebrew on my blog, in the second part of the entry, which generally corresponds to the topic discussed here:
http://wp.me/p1K6uX-fX
Enjoy!
Yehuda (https://www.hayadan.org.il/shremer-on-pseudo-science-0312112/#comment-316908):
Your criticism is based on a misunderstanding of the most basic things.
When there was no science - there was no scientific community either.
All of your historical examples lack any value or taste and their role in your science defamation agenda is clear.
Yehuda (https://www.hayadan.org.il/shremer-on-pseudo-science-0312112/#comment-316916):
You confuse science with scientists and you also distort the description of history.
To remind you - Schechtman received a Nobel Prize.
The process of accepting a claim can take some time, but if the claim is correct it is accepted.
The evidence for the acceleration of the expansion of the universe was not ignored.
Where did you get this story from?
Pseudoscience is, in my view, a definite thing.
Basically - pseudoscience is a lie.
This is a misrepresentation that adopts external characteristics of science to convince readers of the correctness of a scientific claim out of a motivation foreign to the investigation of the truth (such as self-publishing, greed for money, etc.).
The parrots who repeat the claims of pseudoscience should not be called pseudoscientists because they are simply parrots.
To identify pseudo-science - you need to get to the source of the claims.
But here is a problem:
It's usually really hard to know what the motivation behind a person's words is.
If his claim is false, it still does not betray his intentions.
After all, mistakes are part of scientific work and scientists also make mistakes.
To prevent errors from taking root in the body of scientific knowledge, there is peer review, which works quite well.
One of the things that betrays pseudo-science as such is of course the disregard for peer review.
I am not talking about a reasoned rejection of the criticism, but about ignoring it and in some cases also about attempts to obscure it or, alternatively, to personally attack those who hear it.
Israel,
You will be surprised to hear that there are "real" scientists who seek the truth and will not accept different opinions or theories to their own just because of ego.
No one likes to start over.
A true scientist seeks the truth.
It seems to me that most scientists are like that - otherwise they would not choose science as a career, but go into politics.
And if we have to start over with A, then we start.
What I am trying to imply is that a scientific system is first and foremost a sociological system. To ignore the existing scientists in the field, the pressures exerted on them, and the fact that they will suddenly have to go back to school and learn a new theory as the last of the students, that has more meaning than any Popper!
I'm going for a juicy lunch apparently
So Shabbat Shalom everyone
Sabdarmish Yehuda
And we didn't mention Ockham.
For example, string theory requires the assumption of the existence of no less than eleven dimensions, while we barely know four.
Yehuda.
Existence of bodies with mass whose speed is above the speed of light is the end of relativity as we know it.
Unless, those bodies never decreased the speed of light, which is not true in the axis experiment.
The first reason is simple and physical: the relativistic mass formula includes a denominator that reaches zero at the speed of light, therefore giving infinite mass to the body.
The second is logical: it can be shown that in theory, if any speed is the same in every frame of reference, and the speed of light is indeed such, then this speed is the upper limit in nature.
Therefore, if the neutrino is indeed tachyon, we will probably need a new model instead of relativity.
As a matter of fact: my GPS always brings me home safely. Einstein.
The telescope in your observatory always magnifies by the same ratio. Galileo.
My psychologist always admits me to the wrong ward. Freud.
I would say that on the front of science it is really difficult to distinguish between theories that will last and those that will be forgotten in the pages of history.
However, apart from the fruitful conduct that calls for the forefront of science in the academic institutions and professional conferences, they are dragged along by those who have pretensions who lack the ability to criticize professionally, lack self-awareness, lack education and have significant ambitions.
If for the former it is possible to question the ability to separate science from pseudo-science, then for the latter the ability to separate is equal to the ability to separate astrology from nuclear physics, between creationism and evolution, between reading in a coffee shop and geology. If for these it is not possible to make a diagnosis, I do not know what science is
After Israel's response, I notice that we all agree that what distinguishes scientific development from pseudo-science are the measurements that are required to be done (according to Popper)
So let's see what we have about relativity. It has been starring for a hundred years as the scientific truth and suddenly an experiment in the axle comes that seemingly collapses it.
Gilad, and I hope we are all with him, says that you should also let time take its course and not rush and draw conclusions. Ok, time is passing, and then, what will happen if they repeat the experiment in Sarn and decide that it is true?, will they then cancel the theory of relativity, even though we don't have a replacement at hand?, or maybe they will try to find another solution?
Example of a solution:
There is an environment that we will call a "tachyon environment" (or any other name you want) where space is a little more curved, which results in a higher velocity of netrins? And if you ask how much more curved the space is, I will answer as much as necessary!
And if on Mars the netrin speed will be different then there is a different tachyon environment there.
This solution will be convenient because it will preserve the existing paradigm, and the existing job holders of the theory of attribution experts. And not only that, but they will also be the only experts who, in fact, only they will be able to explain the essence of the tachyon universes.
Very quickly articles and books will be written about various tachyon environments. And the time will not be far away, when the quantity will become quality and the measurement of an axis, it is the one that will become a pseudo science! Do you think this is a crazy idea? I don't!
What have we actually done here?, have we changed the data to fit the existing theory!, is this acceptable?, will we temporarily/permanently agree to be with the aforementioned technical correction?. Would you be willing for your government to invest billions to discover the tectonic environment? I do not.
Please respond gently.
Shabbat Shalom
Sabdarmish Yehuda
I will try to summarize:
The front of the scientific research is characterized by different voices, innovative and wild ideas, competition between scientists and the like in these more or less desirable social phenomena.
Things are filtered over time, and what really corresponds to reality survives.
What is not in line with the evidence, but nevertheless continues to try to maintain it for a long time under the guise of "scientific" is pseudo-science.
Yehuda.
"As you know, Popper established the "ability to be refuted" as the absolute demarcation criterion."
Galileo refuted Aristotle by proving that bodies of different weights fall with the same acceleration, contrary to Aristotle's claim. This evidence has not been disproved to date.
Einstein showed that Newton's theory is only a special case of relativity in 1919, due to the bending of light rays by gravitation. This evidence has not been disproved to date.
Therefore, unlike Freud, or creationism, and perhaps strings, their opinion was very quickly accepted and became mainstream among scientists (not including inquisitors).
The same for Newton. His theory of gravitation was quickly and unanimously accepted, with almost the only criticism being regarding copyright credit, or the mechanism of gravitation.
Gilad and Meir put forward the idea that what differentiates pseudo-science from scientific development are the experiments, that is, the ability to be refuted according to Popper.
The question is if we are consistent on the subject, will it not seem to you that it is precisely the scientists who have the accepted theory who will ignore the experiments and measurements that prove the opposite?
Didn't they ignore Shechtman's photographic evidence regarding the crystals?
They also ignored the evidence that showed that the universe is accelerating its expansion!
Let's conduct an interesting experiment in which we will decide what is currently happening with the natrines experiment in Tsern - is the statement that they exceeded the speed of light pseudoscience or a scientific development? After all, in a few months we will know this (pay attention - the test of time as Gilad pointed out) but can we decide this right now?. I do not think so!
What will happen until it is decided? Is the opinion of the majority, which states that it is impossible for the particles to have exceeded the speed of light, the one that will determine that we have pseudoscience here?
It is indeed easy to be with the scientific majority and I will admit that most of it is also usually right, but... sometimes it is wrong.
Shabbat Shalom
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Sabdarmish
It is possible to distinguish between "scientific development" and pseudo-science by experiments, proofs and more...
But I must admit that there is something in your words.
My attempt to define:
An activity that is not scientific but masquerades as such, flaunting external signs of science, such as the use of concepts that are not understood by the common man but sound impressive, graphs, numbers, statistical calculations - any sign that gives a touch of accuracy and reliability in the eyes of the common man.
but at the same time characterized by one or more of the following factors:
* Shabby and amateurish research methods (if they exist at all).
* Claims that do not undergo serious criticism by other researchers.
* Claims that are not supported by controlled trials.
* The lack of principled ability to refute the claims in an experiment.
* Ignoring past refutations with any possible excuse.
Of course, the test of time is an important factor: every initial and innovative claim is not sufficiently supported by experiments, or the experiments are quick & dirty, or they have not yet thought of an experimental way to test them, etc., but if this is the case for many years, this should turn on Warning lights of "pseudo-science".
Astrology, for example, could certainly be a science, since its claims can be refuted, serious studies were done in the field, which were even peer-reviewed, but it emerged from them that there is no empirical support for the claims. So far so good. Astrology fails in the section "ignoring past refutations with any possible excuse" and therefore can earn the title of pseudo-science.
what do you think?
No definition of pseudoscience was attached to the article. I found one on the website of an Israeli article database
"Pseudo-science or pseudo-science (in English: Pseudoscience) refers to a body of knowledge or a practice that claims to be scientific or to be supported by science, but according to the majority of the scientific community do not meet the requirements of the scientific method." End quote.
If this definition is accepted, then the majority of the scientific community is the one who determines the existence of a source as pseudoscience. Hence anything that denies what is accepted in science is immediately defined as pseudo-science by the rule.
Examples: all, but all, scientific development.
Galileo contradicted what was accepted by Aristotle's theory.
Newton as above
Newton's theory of relativity
Schechtman the accepted on the crystals
more and more.
That is, as soon as you brought up something that is not generally accepted, it is immediately defined as pseudo-science.
But we can also call the same thing "scientific development"
Is it even possible to distinguish between "scientific development" and "pseudo science"?
Shabbat Shalom
Sabdarmish Yehuda