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.
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.
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.
RK
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! http://platinum.yahoo.com
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
Ray Saintonge wrote:
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?
that really isn't the same thing at all. mathematical proof is very different scientific proof.
Ec wrote in part:
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.
You should hang out on alt.sci.physics.new-theories more often. (Not that I ever go there anymore, so no promises.) Still, these aren't the same sort of people as chiropractors, or even serious astrologers.
That something cannot be proven does not make it false.
No, but the attitude of the sceptic (which is most opponents of pseudoscience) is that something should not be *relied*upon* unless it's been verified. Let's assume for the sake of argument that chiropractic is pseudoscience but your family doctor's methods have been verified a good deal (by which I mean that they've survived several attempts at falsification). Then the sceptic's POV is that your family doctor is worth turning to but the chiropractor is more likely just a waste of your time -- so if this POV has any credence in society, then it's dishonest to suggest that the chiropractor is as reliable as the family doctor. (This is a more subtle position than what I *think* RK is saying, and I haven't checked whether, say, Fredbauer is violating it or not.)
In the spirit of Kurt Gödel there are always things that cannot be proven within a finite set of principles.
As a mathematician, I'm contractually obligated to refute misapplications of Gödel's theorems. Of course, you only said "In the spirit of" ....
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?
No, but anybody that maintained that it was a theorem would be called, at best, mistaken. No mathematician would have *relied*upon* its truth, even one that believed it. Of course, we're not exactly comparing the same things here, scientific verification vs mathematical proof.
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.
Aside: Constructivist mathematicians would argue that even "Some A are false" is too strong. But that's irrelevant here.
-- Toby
Toby Bartels wrote:
Ec wrote in part:
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.
You should hang out on alt.sci.physics.new-theories more often. (Not that I ever go there anymore, so no promises.) Still, these aren't the same sort of people as chiropractors, or even serious astrologers.
I had never visited there before. So I had a quick look at random articles. Someone was referring to accelerating assholes. I immediately determined that the entire newsgroup was moving beyond my mental capacity at an exponential rate.
That something cannot be proven does not make it false.
No, but the attitude of the sceptic (which is most opponents of pseudoscience) is that something should not be *relied*upon* unless it's been verified. Let's assume for the sake of argument that chiropractic is pseudoscience but your family doctor's methods have been verified a good deal (by which I mean that they've survived several attempts at falsification). Then the sceptic's POV is that your family doctor is worth turning to but the chiropractor is more likely just a waste of your time -- so if this POV has any credence in society, then it's dishonest to suggest that the chiropractor is as reliable as the family doctor. (This is a more subtle position than what I *think* RK is saying, and I haven't checked whether, say, Fredbauer is violating it or not.)
Subtlety does not appear to play a big role in RK's approach to a subject. ;-) but let's leave RK aside.
The argument that you are making seems probabilistic, and I can go along with that. Any two approaches to a problem will have varying probabilities of success. In many medical conditions chiropractic and standard medical techniques will have different probabilities of success. In very many of those conditions chiropractic's will be very near zero. But dismissing chiropractors as utter charlatans does not lead to the conclusion that the standard medical doctor will perfect. They too have often been sold a bill of goods by drug company sales representatives with fat commissions to protect..
In the spirit of Kurt Gödel there are always things that cannot be proven within a finite set of principles.
As a mathematician, I'm contractually obligated to refute misapplications of Gödel's theorems. Of course, you only said "In the spirit of" ....
It would be a shame if Gödel had no practical application!
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?
No, but anybody that maintained that it was a theorem would be called, at best, mistaken. No mathematician would have *relied*upon* its truth, even one that believed it. Of course, we're not exactly comparing the same things here, scientific verification vs mathematical proof.
You really should try to get people in the other sciences to accept mathematical standards of proof. :-)
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.
Aside: Constructivist mathematicians would argue that even "Some A are false" is too strong. But that's irrelevant here.
My requests are more modest. Consistency with basic logic, or consistent definitions.
Ec.
Ec wrote in part:
But dismissing chiropractors as utter charlatans does not lead to the conclusion that the standard medical doctor will perfect.
Certainly not.
They too have often been sold a bill of goods by drug company sales representatives with fat commissions to protect..
And one also needs to considere the sceptical POV of this as well.
Toby Bartels wrote:
As a mathematician, I'm contractually obligated to refute misapplications of Gödel's theorems. Of course, you only said "In the spirit of" ....
It would be a shame if Gödel had no practical application!
Well, these theorems have application to logic and philosophy. They're related to matters with application to computer science.
Of course, we're not exactly comparing the same things here, scientific verification vs mathematical proof.
You really should try to get people in the other sciences to accept mathematical standards of proof. :-)
I trust that the smiley is an «I'm just kidding, I'm not serious.» smiley. ^_^
-- Toby
I am appalled that you continue to hide behind your own personal definition of science to make personal attacks on people you disagree with. Zoe Robert rkscience100@yahoo.com wrote:I am appalled that you publicly slander scientists, instead of dealing with the issues.
RK
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!
On Thu, 2003-03-20 at 15:05, Zoe wrote:
I am appalled that you continue to hide behind your own personal definition of science to make personal attacks on people you disagree with. Zoe Robert rkscience100@yahoo.com wrote:I am appalled that you publicly slander scientists, instead of dealing with the issues.
Okay, everyone's appalled. Congratulations. Can we tone down the rhetoric now?
It's not nice or appropriate to compare the term "pseudoscience" to the terms "kike" and "faggot".
It's implausible (or shows a lack of equanimity) to be appalled at every inappropriate statement other Wikipedians make.
We'll do much better if people try to engage in argument here without resorting to the words "slander", "appall", "pig-headed", "attack", and vulgarities, etc.
The Cunctator wrote:
Okay, everyone's appalled. Congratulations. Can we tone down the rhetoric now?
I second the motion. I've been a bit behind in my wiki-emails, and I'm just catching up. Had I been around, I would have posted soothing comments about WikiLove long ago.
Let's all cut each other some slack, huh?
--Jimbo