[WikiEN-l] Slander against scientists

[Ray Saintonge]

Robert wrote:

>Ray Saintonge <saintonge at 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