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