David Gerard wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Karl A. Krueger wrote:
* Homeopathic preparations made according to
Hahnemann's method
contain none of the "potentized" substance.
Hahnemann needs to be viewed in the context of his own time. He didn't
know about bacteria and virusus because they weren't discovered yet, but
unwittingly his thinking foreshadows the discovery of vaccines.
I think that's far too generous, akin to claiming that the thinking of
alchemists who wanted to turn lead into gold unwittingly foreshadowed
the work of [[Ernest Rutherford]].
Which particular alchemist were you thinking of? Or are you just
drawing on stereotypes about what alchemists did.
Your
comment is still phrased negatively. Burdens of proof remain with the
person making the claim; requiring proof that something does not exist
can be an impossible task. If it doesn't exist you won't find it; if it
does exist you may not find it.
The burden of proof is on the pseudoscientist asserting the
respectability of "science" to show this apparent non-science works for
any verifiable definition of "works" - theirs is the outrageous claim.
I don't know what the "respectability" of science has to do with
anything; no-one is arguing that science is not respectable.
When you begin from the premise that the person making is a
pseudoscientist you prejudice the argument. Why not just say, "the
person asserting..."? The burden of proof for a theory or process is
certainly upon the person asserting it.
Similarly the burden of proof for the assertion that the person is a
pseudoscientist is upon the person making that assertion. Otherwise
there's no difference between that and the libel in the Seigenthaler case.
The
astrological example is a question of definition. Astrologers will
say that the sun is in a sign rather than a constellation. These signs
are predetermined 30 degree segments which need not correspond with the
constellations of the same name. The real issues in astrology are quite
different, and have more to do about the relationship of planetary
positions to what happens here on earth.
I have yet to see an advocate of astrology asked for some
[[falsifiable]] prediction even understand the question.
No definition is falsifiable. If he doesn't understand your question,
that says nothing for or against the validity of the theories he
supports. But I wouldn't expect the local drafter of charts to
understand that question anymore than the local lab technician. Both
are more likely to understand it as an accusation of cooking the
results, or deviating from what their respective textbooks tell them to do.
Consider also the related case of the law, which --
like science -- has
some kind of standards of evidence. We start the article on [[Ted
Bundy]] with the claim that he _was_ a serial killer and rapist ... not
merely that the court _claimed_ that he was a serial killer and rapist.
We don't apply this standard uncritically; there are certainly courts
whose opinions we would not take in evidence. But where we do, we are
generally not wrong to do so.
I essentially agree, but there will still be a problem with deciding
which court decisions can be used as valid evidence. We can doubt the
validity of Trotsky's conviction by Stalin's show trials, but even
countries with suspect governments will need to deal with common criminals.
This is really not relevant to the issue of the word "pseudoscience".
But I wasn't the one to mention Ted Bundy, or make an analogy with law.
I certainly agree that we need to refrain from
epithets. I'm not sure
where the term "pseudoscience" falls, though. I personally would use it
very narrowly, to refer to fields whose practitioners make a point of
calling the field scientific, but where nothing like scientific practice
is being done ... or, perhaps by extension, where there are not actually
any data upon which to do scientfic study.
I too prefer a narrow usage, tending to not at all. "Nothing like" and
"not any data" both depend on negative findings.
"Where's the science?" is a reasonable question that pseudoscience
fails.
That's an empty generality. Science is in the process, not the results.
In short, you can't be doing pseudoscience if you
don't claim to be
doing science, or more generally try to adopt the mantle of science. If
you teach dance and tell your students that it's good for their souls,
this isn't a claim to science -- so it can't be pseudoscientific.
Some people in the dance community might dispute your findings. I sit
as a parent member on a stakeholders' committee of our local school
board, and we heard a recent presentation on learning and the arts.
Their point was that dance activity can help to improve student
achievement iover a range of more traditional subjects.
Did they have numbers? Did you examine the methodology?
They did refer to studies on the effect of the arts on student
achievement done education faculties of universities.
I'm not so sure this makes sense. There are lots
of labels that we are
willing to apply to people who do not themselves accept the labels. The
most obvious are those drawn from fields such as science and law, which
have reasonably credible standards of verifiability.
When it comes to naming issues I tend to favour proponents rather than
opponents. In our situation there is no dispute about the naming of
most individual fields, only about what we call them collectively. It's
important that the term which we choose carry no implication about the
truth or falsity of the contents, or carry in anyway that something is
personally wrong with the practitioners. To me "alternat[iv]e" only
suggests that it's different.
The thing is that it isn't just "different", it's qualitatively
defective as the thing it's pretending to be.
And how would that statement be verifiable.
I'm coming across as much more strident in this
thread than I mean to
be. But the point is that pseudoscience is in fact *bullshit*, not
science, and there's going to be no label that doesn't puff up the
subjects with false respectability that won't soon carry the same
connotations. Because it is in fact bullshit.
Pseudoscience can very well be characterized as bullshit. However, the
process whereby certain studies and practices are classified as
pseudoscience is also bullshit.
Ec