Fastfission wrote:
On 12/16/05, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
"Alternate science" is science that deviates from the mainstream in significant ways. As long as there are some involved in good faith experiments which attempt to adhere to scientific principles they are scientists. If their experiments fail they go back to the drawing board to alter the hypothesis or experimental design. Repeated failure of experiments is not enough to make their efforts unscientific.
...
Here we are not concerned with any particular subject by itself, but a wide range of subjects with varying degrees of support or hostility, including mutual hostility. "Alternative science" may appear sympathetic to the proponents, but not outrageously so.
I was about to launch int the question of favouring "alternate" to "alternative" science, but a review of the matter in my Oxford Dictionary informs me that this is really a British vs. American usage issue with "alternate" being favoured in North America. Traditionally the adjective "alternate" in British usage is restricted to situations where there are only two choices. To whatever extent it may be relevant this aspect should be guided by our usual policies regarding British and American usages.
The sumpathetic aspect is calling it science at all. Things labeled pseudoscience are not alternative interpretations of scientific theories, but are things which are contended to not even be science itself.
Are we prepared to enforce a strict definition of the word "science". Searching on Wikipedia tells me that we have 50,211 articles with the word "science" We have an article called [[Icelandology]] which says "Icelandology comprises the wide range of scientific problems and topics concerning this specific insular country." And later: "Icelandology also covers tourism". If we are going to be strict about using the term "science" what do we do about this sort of article? What do we do about the broad area of social sciences where many of us would agree that there is very little hard science involved
Pseudoscience is defined as a non-scientific methodology which calls itself a scientific methodology. The POV problem with it is not the definition, but the assignment of fields to it. Similarly with Soviet spies, the problem is not that the idea of the category is inherently flawed (the idea of a Soviet spy is certainly comprehensible), but in saying that one person or another actually was a Soviet spy (versus accused of spying by the U.S. intelligence community, or something like that).
In analogic form about applied POV... Pseudoscience : Soviet spying :: Scientists : U.S. intelligence services.
I agree, and many of the mainstream scientists who are quick to attach the "pseudoscience" label have likely done little or no study of the field that they want to label. In doing so they are themselves acting pseudoscientifically. In one of my earlier go-rounds with this topic when it was about the [[List ...]] of such topics there were some editors who would strongly support the idea of the list, but would balk at putting cryptozoölogy, exobiology, and the SETI Project on the list. If someone wants to apply the term "pseudoscience" he should carry the burden of verifiability in a manner consistent with what that term means.
If we interpret "science" strictly that's true. Nevertheless, others use the word "science" to refer to any kind of disciplined approach to a subject, as in the science of Texas Hold'em.
Okay, but that's not the sense of "science" used when talking about alternative science or pseudoscience. You can't just decide arbitrarily when something is a strict or a loose sense of the term.
It may not be the sense that some are talking about, but that will not be evident from a simple title. Some others will use a much broader broader meaning. We really can't say how users will interpret it. The Oxford Dictionary that I cited does not make specific mention of alternat[iv]e science. It does refer to an "alternate universe" in the context of distinguishing the two forms. It does have an entry for "alternative medicine" which it defines as "any of a range of medical therapies that are not regarded as orthodox by the medical profession, such as herbalism, naturopathy and crystal healing." Even if we limit discussion to these three topics there would be disputes, and I suspect that crystal healing may have relatively less respectability than the other two.
Is medicine anything other than a branch of science? "Unorthodox science" anybody?
Ec