Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 29, 2024, 11:39 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
How I Learned to Love Pseudoscience
#11
RE: How I Learned to Love Pseudoscience
Perhaps there is a misunderstanding, there is a "science" to how things work.
Take for example, the internal combustion engine, whether or not some simple-minded blockhead understands the science behind it, has no effect on how the engine works.
Reply
#12
RE: How I Learned to Love Pseudoscience
(October 10, 2021 at 11:45 am)no one Wrote: Perhaps there is a misunderstanding, there is a "science" to how things work.
Take for example, the internal combustion engine, whether or not some simple-minded blockhead understands the science behind it, has no effect on how the engine works.

Kind of like vaccinations?
Reply
#13
RE: How I Learned to Love Pseudoscience
Kind of exactly like vaccinations.
Reply
#14
RE: How I Learned to Love Pseudoscience
(October 10, 2021 at 11:45 am)no one Wrote: Perhaps there is a misunderstanding, there is a "science" to how things work.
Take for example, the internal combustion engine, whether or not some simple-minded blockhead understands the science behind it, has no effect on how the engine works.

I consider that a misuse of the term.  There is a precise mechanism by which an internal combustion engine works.  One can use science to describe the chemical and mechanical behaviors happening and of course it was scientific work that led to the development of said engine.  The difference is subtle but important.

The reason there's a difference.  Consider the Copernican model of the solar system and the Galileo version.  Both are correct from an observational standpoint.  You can use either to somewhat accurately predict the positions of the planets, yet one has a flawed basis if you are considering the objective reality of how the solar system is arranged.
Why is it so?
~Julius Sumner Miller
Reply
#15
RE: How I Learned to Love Pseudoscience
Clearly, we are looking at it from two very different angles.

My point, there is a way that things work, regardless of human understanding of how they work.
Reply
#16
RE: How I Learned to Love Pseudoscience
(October 10, 2021 at 2:39 pm)no one Wrote: Clearly, we are looking at it from two very different angles.

My point, there is a way that things work, regardless of human understanding of how they work.

No doubt, I don't dispute that.  We use science as a tool to get a close approximation of that.
Why is it so?
~Julius Sumner Miller
Reply
#17
RE: How I Learned to Love Pseudoscience
(October 9, 2021 at 2:18 pm)vulcanlogician Wrote:



Nice video for anyone with 10 or so minutes to spare.

But something she said really irks me: "The word 'skeptical' has suffered in recent years because a lot of science-deniers now claim to be 'skeptics.'"

And you know what? She's right. But I am loathe to call science-deniers skeptics. I think the skepticism inherent in science is way more rigorous than the skepticism of anti-vaxxers and such. And that's why I don't want to call these people skeptics. It's skepticism without rigor. And that hardly counts as skepticism at all in my book.

What do you think? Do science-deniers qualify as skeptics?

They absolutely do not qualify as skeptics. As you stated skepticism is a rigorous discipline applied to the world around you to ensure that you only accept what can be proven. Those who are science-deniers are nothing more than ignorant people who refuse to do any of the work required to be actual skeptics.
Reply
#18
RE: How I Learned to Love Pseudoscience
(October 9, 2021 at 2:18 pm)vulcanlogician Wrote:



Nice video for anyone with 10 or so minutes to spare.

But something she said really irks me: "The word 'skeptical' has suffered in recent years because a lot of science-deniers now claim to be 'skeptics.'"

And you know what? She's right. But I am loathe to call science-deniers skeptics. I think the skepticism inherent in science is way more rigorous than the skepticism of anti-vaxxers and such. And that's why I don't want to call these people skeptics. It's skepticism without rigor. And that hardly counts as skepticism at all in my book.

What do you think? Do science-deniers qualify as skeptics?



They qualify as skeptics.  but they don’t qualify as truth seeking skeptics.  rather they use skepticism as a convenient tool in a purposed effort to aggrandize what they conceive to be their own interest at the expense of truth. 

(October 10, 2021 at 9:12 am)no one Wrote: Science is always right, regardless of what some brainless buffoon thinks.

Humans may not understand, that does not change the validity of said science.

As little as 200 years ago there wasn't anyone who understood the lifecycle of a star, that did nothing to change the science of the lifecycle of stars



one of the fundamental defect of our traditional world view is it does not equip much of society to effectively handle the realities of right and wrong as anything other than in the context of a false dichotomy.

science is not always right, in fact it is still mostly at least partially wrong.  but it is nonetheless always much more likely to be at least partially right than any the product of any competing means of determining what is right.
Reply
#19
RE: How I Learned to Love Pseudoscience
(October 9, 2021 at 2:18 pm)vulcanlogician Wrote:



Nice video for anyone with 10 or so minutes to spare.

But something she said really irks me: "The word 'skeptical' has suffered in recent years because a lot of science-deniers now claim to be 'skeptics.'"

And you know what? She's right. But I am loathe to call science-deniers skeptics. I think the skepticism inherent in science is way more rigorous than the skepticism of anti-vaxxers and such. And that's why I don't want to call these people skeptics. It's skepticism without rigor. And that hardly counts as skepticism at all in my book.

What do you think? Do science-deniers qualify as skeptics?

To be fair, the church of Galileo's time were "skeptics" to what he said.
Reply
#20
RE: How I Learned to Love Pseudoscience
(October 10, 2021 at 3:27 pm)Brian37 Wrote: To be fair, the church of Galileo's time were "skeptics" to what he said.

I suppose you could take that position since Galileo's hypothesis contradicted the accepted theory, but he did bring new evidence to the table via telescope.  Even so, it hardly justifies their reaction to his ideas.

Skepticism is not a bad thing; it's a healthy part of the scientific method and forces scientists to do the hard work.
Why is it so?
~Julius Sumner Miller
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Acupunture - pseudoscience? mcolafson 54 11281 December 6, 2016 at 1:54 pm
Last Post: Amarok
  What is a pseudoscience? carusmm 10 1922 May 31, 2016 at 8:51 am
Last Post: bennyboy
  Pseudoscience and/is the God Claim Jenny A 2 1817 July 16, 2015 at 4:22 am
Last Post: ignoramus
  Needed: A new sub-subforum: "Skepticism, Pseudoscience & Just Plain Bat Shit Crazy" Whateverist 26 7702 February 16, 2015 at 5:24 pm
Last Post: Confused Ape
  Bill Nye on Pseudoscience Tea Earl Grey Hot 0 1129 May 14, 2014 at 6:07 pm
Last Post: Tea Earl Grey Hot
  Science or Pseudoscience? Rayaan 15 5349 July 10, 2012 at 6:27 am
Last Post: Angrboda
  Pseudoscience-De-Motivational KichigaiNeko 6 2945 May 23, 2012 at 5:41 am
Last Post: Kayenneh



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)