Joined: Jun 2008 Gender: Male Posts: 3,468 Location: Newcastle, Australia
Pseudosciences « Thread Started on Jul 4, 2008, 4:16pm »
Pseudoscience From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia [Excerpt - Linked Above]
Quote:
Pseudoscience is defined as a body of knowledge, methodology, belief, or practice that is claimed to be scientific or made to appear scientific, but does not adhere to the scientific method, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, or otherwise lacks scientific status. The term comes from the Greek root pseudo- (false or pretending) and "science" (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge"). An early recorded use was in 1843 by French physiologist François Magendie, who is considered a pioneer in experimental physiology.
Is there a name, or can someone come up with a name, and explanation for the irritating phenomenon whereby unsubstantiated, pseudoscientific and ahistoric fringe theories appear to gain more popular support than what are often even more amazing findings, advanced by serious practitioners who put in the requisite time and practice, immersing themselves in the permutations and nuances of their particular disciplines, and whose opinions at least deserve some favourable predisposition, instead of being met with derision? Under the same phenomenon, individuals scoffing at serious science or history, often try to cloak their own pet, whacky ideas in the trapping of those same disciplines, apparently trying to have their cake and eat it too.
I postulate that people attempt to substitute the more fringe beliefs for religion, hence the quasi-religious attitude that often is displayed in such beliefs as alien intervention. Humans have a natural inclination towards spiritual beliefs, and when religion itself is rejected or marginalised, substitutes are found. The belief in aliens, for instance, has come, for many, to be a replacement for angels. If one compares the similarity in alien abduction tales and angel encounters, there is a striking similarity.
As to why they tend to couch thier speculations in the trappings of science, it is an attempt to gain legitamacy.
Regarding a term to describe, accurately, the various psudeoscientific tin-foil-hat Konspiracy Kookiness, I have an old-fashioned one: BULLS***!
[James Randi Educational Foundation - Linked Above]
Quote:
The Foundation is committed to providing reliable information about paranormal claims. It both supports and conducts original research into such claims.
At JREF, we offer a one-million-dollar prize to anyone who can show, under proper observing conditions, evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event. The JREF does not involve itself in the testing procedure, other than helping to design the protocol and approving the conditions under which a test will take place. All tests are designed with the participation and approval of the applicant. In most cases, the applicant will be asked to perform a relatively simple preliminary test of the claim, which if successful, will be followed by the formal test. Preliminary tests are usually conducted by associates of the JREF at the site where the applicant lives. Upon success in the preliminary testing process, the "applicant" becomes a "claimant."
NEGATIVE PROOF From Wikipedia - The Free Encyclopedia [Excerpt - Linked Above]
Quote:
Negative proof, the fallacy of appealing to lack of proof of the negative, is a logical fallacy of the following form:
"X is true because there is no proof that X is false." It is asserted that a proposition is true, only because it has not been proven false. The negative proof fallacy often occurs in the debate of the existence of supernatural phenomena, in the following form:
"A supernatural force must exist, because there is no proof that it does not exist". However, the fallacy can also occur when the predicate of a subject is denied:
"A supernatural force does not exist, because there is no proof that it does exist." "Scientists don't know for sure what natural forces caused the first single-cell life, so it must be intelligent design."
Is there a name, or can someone come up with a name, and explanation for the irritating phenomenon whereby unsubstantiated, pseudoscientific and ahistoric fringe theories appear to gain more popular support than what are often even more amazing findings, advanced by serious practitioners who put in the requisite time and practice, immersing themselves in the permutations and nuances of their particular disciplines, and whose opinions at least deserve some favourable predisposition, instead of being met with derision? Under the same phenomenon, individuals scoffing at serious science or history, often try to cloak their own pet, whacky ideas in the trapping of those same disciplines, apparently trying to have their cake and eat it too.
![[Home]](http://s4.images.proboards.com/menu/home.gif)
![[Help]](http://s4.images.proboards.com/menu/help.gif)
![[Search]](http://s4.images.proboards.com/menu/search.gif)
![[Login]](http://s4.images.proboards.com/menu/login.gif)
![[Register]](http://s4.images.proboards.com/menu/register.gif)
![[Search This Thread]](http://s4.images.proboards.com/search2.gif)
![[Send Topic To Friend]](http://s4.images.proboards.com/buttons/sendtopic.gif)
![[Print]](http://s4.images.proboards.com/buttons/print.gif)
Author
![[avatar]](http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n261/philipcarter/avatars/kanganew.jpg)
![[homepage]](http://s4.images.proboards.com/buttons/www_sm.gif)
![[image]](http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n261/philipcarter/humour/tinfoil.jpg)
Logged![[image]](http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n261/philipcarter/avatars/squarehands.jpg)
![[image]](http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n261/philipcarter/humour/subvert-calvin.jpg)
![[avatar]](http://i271.photobucket.com/albums/jj135/ghostrider1960/DocII.jpg)
![[image]](http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n261/philipcarter/humour/Thencallit425.jpg)
![[image]](http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e120/tamrin_quarry/lamadeja.jpg)