Robert wrote:
Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net writes:
Yes! Even a noted skeptic like Michael Shermer is very careful about using the word. Pseudoscience literaly means false science.
Stop playing word games. Pseudoscience has a much wider meaning than that. In any case, mainstream scientists and skeptics use this word quite a bit. They only use this word, of course, when there is no other alternative.
They often use it at the drop of a hat to refer to anything that does not conform to their individual POVs about what science should be. The honest scientists know that they lack the background for making any pronouncements.
In reality many of the subject areas popularly encompased by the term have never been proven true to the satisfaction of the traditional scientific community. To say that not proven equates to proven false is to apply the fallacy of the excluded middle that is often phrased "If you're not with us you're against us."
Untrue. This not how science works, or how the skeptical community deals with claims of the paranormal. Propoents of pseudosceince are unable to defend themselves from the actual claims that scientists make, so they create a straw-man carcicature of science, and attack that strawman. That is shameful.
I'm sorry that I tried to use logic. It was presumptuous of me to think that Robert would understand that. There are no "proponents of pseudoscience"; that would be a prima-facie self-defeating POV. Of course, it's understandable that people with alternative views about science would be unable to defend themselves when they are attacked by people who have no idea about what they are saying. As to the "straw man", let's be clear about who's attacking who. Students of alternative scientific theories are content to pursue their studies, and have better things to do with their time than to go out attacking scientists. The only shameful thing here is the way you are blaming the victim.
The term "pseudoscience" is as much a pejorative as "kike" or "faggot" which have been discussed in a concurrent thread
That's a bald-faced lie, and an attempt to slander scientists. I am shocked at the hateful way that proponents of pseudoscience claim to be victims of religious-like discrimination. The truth is that proponents of pseudoscience push statements that can not be proven, and when scientifically analyzed in controlled studies, are found to be false - or fraudulent.
I am appalled that you publicly slander scientists, instead of dealing with the issues.
Faggotry has nothing to do with religion, but that's only incidental to the issue.
But Robert, let's be consistent. If pseudoscience is not science, then it is more like a religion. Then too how can such an apologist for science support ANY religion. Are you lying when you say that you believe in science, or are you lying when you say that you believe in your religion? If pseudoscientists are indeed religious then they are perfectly justified in claiming that they are "victims of religious-like discrimination". Some people who legitimately complain that they are victims of religious discrimination, are woefully blind to the discrimination that they practise themselves.
That something cannot be proven does not make it false. In the spirit of Kurt Gödel there are always things that cannot be proven withinn a finite set of principles. Fermat's Last Theorem could not be proven for 300 years, did that make it false during all that time? Were all the people who insisted on its truth for three centuries to be called pseudoscientists, or even more slanderously, frauds? A basic concept of logic is that the negation of the statement "All A are true" is "Some A are false" and NOT "All A are false. The fallacy of the excluded middle ignores that simple principle.
There was no slander of scientists. Only a criticism of those ignorant and pig-headed ones who insist on making pronouncements about subjects where they have no knowledge.
Ray