Karl A. Krueger wrote:
On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 04:58:51PM -0800, Ray Saintonge wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Because you had to characterize it as pseudoscience in the first place.
This resembles a circular argument.
Is there any word or phrase in *common usage* (i.e., we can't coin a Wikipedia-only neologism) that covers what is meant by "pseudoscience"?
"Alternate science" is such a term which does not carrry the same negative baggage as "pseudoscience".
"Alternate science" suggests that a type of science is being done, which is (a) not always the case, and (b) adopts the practitioner's POV.
"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.
Are engineers, lab technicians and other practitioners of applied science really scientists, when they simply apply predetermined protocols to deal with certain circumstances. They read the building codes and apply its rules. If the building falls down it is a more serious offence not to have followed the code than to have a perfectly reasoned argument for having done things the way they were done. The average astrologer is no scientist either; he just follows the rules set down in his textbooks..
I would not say that using the term "alternate science" implies adopting the practitioner's POV. It may be adopting his terminology, but by itself naming things is not science. Definitions are not science; they are just a framework upon which to build discussions, and can neither be proven not disproven. When we define "charm" in the context of quarks we are not bound by what that word means to the ordinary person. The naming of things is primarily the domain of the proponents. No-one can meaningfully oppose a concept until it is proposed.
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.
Regarding (a), see e.g. the NYT article of December 7 regarding the Templeton Foundation's attempts to fund "Intelligent Design" research. The foundation, which funds work to reconcile science and religion, went to ID advocates -- including the Discovery Institute -- and tried to get research proposals. They got ... nothing. The ID "scientists" don't want to _do_ science, even for a sympathetic audience like Templeton.
Sorry, but I'm not at all sympathetic to intelligent design. There are other subjects in this category that I find more interesting, but I'm willing to allow it to be called "alternate science" in order to be able to have meningful discussions.
Science is not just a field of knowledge -- it's a field of endeavor; a range of organized human behavior. It isn't ideas or subject matter that constitute science, but rather scientific _practice_ -- research, experimentation, observation. If there isn't any science _practice_ being done, then the field isn't scientific.
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.
You don't get to be a scientist by having opinions about the same sort of matters that scientists study. You have to actually do the work and participate in the process. Science isn't something scientists believe in, it's something scientists _do_.
Then there are very few scientists! ;-)
"Alternate science" suggests that there's science being done, but that it simply comes to different conclusions than mainstream science. But in this case (and many others) there isn't actually any science there; there's only the *assertion* of science. That's what makes ID not an "alternate science" but rather a pseudoscience.
That could be the case with ID, but that's an issue of what gets included in the category. To me the important feature of "alternate science" is not variant conclusions but variant premises. and fundamental hypotheses.
Ec