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]].
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.
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.
> 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".
> 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.
> 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?
> 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.
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.
- d.