Karl A. Krueger wrote:
On Sun, Dec 18, 2005 at 11:55:29AM +0000, Sam Korn wrote:
The problem is that "pseudoscience" is a subjective term. Whether a topic is pseudoscience is not a black-and-white thing.
When someone says "it's not a black-and-white thing", they are usually correct that there exist *some* "gray" or undecided cases ... but there usually are also many cases that are definitely "black" or "white".
The existence of vague boundaries doesn't rule out that some things are definitely on one side and others definitely on the other.
True it doesn't, but we still need structured criteria before deciding whether something is black or white. Things that cannot meet the criteria stay in the vague middle.
Who determines whether the scientific method has been followed? Not us!
Who's talking about "the scientific method" here? There isn't *one* scientific method, and nobody here is claiming that there is.
So now there are at least two scientific methods, maybe more. Please describe the difference between what you see as the two prinipal ones. What happens when they come in conflict with each other.
What's at issue are fields that don't do anything even remotely resembling scientific work, yet the practitioners call their ideas "scientific".
We're not talking about string theory or cold fusion. We're not even talking about zero-point energy or acupuncture or orgonomy.
We're talking about "scientific astrology", "creation science", and other fields that do nothing resembling scientific work, and yet call themselves "science".
That's a very wide range of topics indeed. Most have some believers who try very hard to be scientific.
The proponents of these theories will never be of the opinion that they are pseudoscience, and that they fail to conform to the scientific method!
Of course not. But many people likewise reject unflattering facts about them. Scientologists would prefer we don't talk about Xenu. That a person who falsely claims "science" doesn't like it talked about that they have not done any experiments or observations, simply doesn't enter into the issue. There exists a fact of the matter, and we are bound to report it as such.
If someone comes up with a new conjecture -- call it the Moo Principle -- and claims that it is "scientific", then we are correct to seek out the citations for scientific research on the subject. If there actually is not any research -- they simply chose to call it "scientific" because "religious" wouldn't get their Moo Principle into the public schools -- then calling their work "para-science" or "alternate science" would be simply false. "Pseudoscience" is simply the correct term.
A more likely result on Wikipedia would be to call it "original research".
Ec