Posts: 5813
Threads: 86
Joined: November 19, 2017
Reputation:
59
How I Learned to Love Pseudoscience
October 9, 2021 at 2:18 pm
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?
Posts: 9915
Threads: 53
Joined: November 27, 2015
Reputation:
92
RE: How I Learned to Love Pseudoscience
October 9, 2021 at 2:30 pm
(This post was last modified: October 9, 2021 at 2:31 pm by LadyForCamus.)
I’ve talked about this on FB a bit. I think these people who are regarding themselves as “skeptical,” are actually conflating suspicion with skepticism, and they seem to be indiscriminately suspicious of just about everything (except their own positions), regardless of what the scientific consensus happens to say on any matter, which is the antithesis of skepticism, IMO.
Nay_Sayer: “Nothing is impossible if you dream big enough, or in this case, nothing is impossible if you use a barrel of KY Jelly and a miniature horse.”
Wiser words were never spoken.
Posts: 67304
Threads: 140
Joined: June 28, 2011
Reputation:
162
RE: How I Learned to Love Pseudoscience
October 9, 2021 at 2:31 pm
(This post was last modified: October 9, 2021 at 2:33 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
My opinion, they sure do. They're people who apply a highly critical model to new information with a steep bar for acceptance. Like any tool....it can be used for a variety of purposes. Our disparate conclusions hide the efficacy and ubiquity of the contemporary skeptical worldview. I wouldn't want to be a religious nut from the bronze age trying to sell my religion from scratch...today.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Posts: 28448
Threads: 525
Joined: June 16, 2015
Reputation:
90
RE: How I Learned to Love Pseudoscience
October 9, 2021 at 2:37 pm
This is pseudoscience.
![[Image: F0KzBx.gif]](https://i.makeagif.com/media/9-05-2017/F0KzBx.gif)
The rest is just pseudo.
Being told you're delusional does not necessarily mean you're mental.
Posts: 5813
Threads: 86
Joined: November 19, 2017
Reputation:
59
RE: How I Learned to Love Pseudoscience
October 9, 2021 at 5:50 pm
(This post was last modified: October 9, 2021 at 5:56 pm by vulcanlogician.)
(October 9, 2021 at 2:31 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: My opinion, they sure do. They're people who apply a highly critical model to new information with a steep bar for acceptance. Like any tool....it can be used for a variety of purposes. Our disparate conclusions hide the efficacy and ubiquity of the contemporary skeptical worldview. I wouldn't want to be a religious nut from the bronze age trying to sell my religion from scratch...today.
I like Camus's take on it: they're suspicious, not skeptical.
I want to say anti-vaxxers aren't engaging in true to form skepticism because they aren't saying "prove x and we'll be satisfied." Conversely to skeptics, they propose a sort of bigfoot who is "out there in the woods somewhere." They're pseudoscientists. But just like homeopathists, who engage in "skepticism" of Western medicine, their brand of "skepticism" isn't oriented toward getting to the bottom of things, its purpose is to help them distribute their snake oil.
I find your definition interesting, though. "A highly critical model to new information with a steep bar for acceptance." It's true that, in any arena, skepticism can be taken too far. There's always something you can doubt. And nothing can stop someone from doubting. So maybe these guys are true to form skeptics... they've just taken the enterprise of skepticism too far.
Posts: 3313
Threads: 119
Joined: January 19, 2015
Reputation:
30
RE: How I Learned to Love Pseudoscience
October 9, 2021 at 9:24 pm
I think there needs to be a distinction between those who question claims because of a lack of supporting evidence and those who question claims in spite of supporting evidence. The former is logical while the latter is emotional. They are obviously not equivalent.
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.
Albert Einstein
Posts: 1465
Threads: 31
Joined: November 29, 2020
Reputation:
8
RE: How I Learned to Love Pseudoscience
October 10, 2021 at 8:30 am
(This post was last modified: October 10, 2021 at 8:41 am by Spongebob.)
(October 9, 2021 at 2:18 pm)vulcanlogicial 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?
You are completely right to call them out on this. No, antivaxxers and such are not skeptics; they are wing nuts. Just like people screaming that not wearing a mask represents freedom. It's a corruption of the terminology. You also have ding dongs who claim they are scientists but do nothing of the sort.
There are specific warning signs to distinguish between skeptics and pseudos (nutjobs). Skeptics apply sound logic, reason and evidence in an effort to question the efficacy of whatever topic is in play. The others employ a wide array of nonsensical tools to obscure the topic to the point that their position can't reasonably be understood so it is accepted by default by some. Some of these are questioning the sources, use of vague or exaggerated claims or even confusing language, confirmation bias, appealing to secrecy, claims of conspiracy. These types of people often continue making claims after those claims have been definitively demonstrated to be false. They utilize almost every logical fallacy in the book. Their claims are famously lacking in peer review and often rely on special pleading when challenged. There are scores of such approaches they employ and they will try as many as needed until some of the pay off.
Why is it so?
~Julius Sumner Miller
Posts: 6112
Threads: 53
Joined: September 25, 2018
Reputation:
20
RE: How I Learned to Love Pseudoscience
October 10, 2021 at 9:12 am
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
Posts: 1465
Threads: 31
Joined: November 29, 2020
Reputation:
8
RE: How I Learned to Love Pseudoscience
October 10, 2021 at 11:09 am
(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
First of all, "science" is a method, not a institution, so it's not meaningful to say science is always right or wrong. The method is sound and produces results; that's the most you can say with confidence.
Your star statement is true, but don't confuse scientific methodology with technology. The reason we understand what we do about stars is because of telescopic technology. Without that we would still know very little about stars except for their movements. Their composition, distance, age, internal functioning, all of that would still be mostly speculation.
Why is it so?
~Julius Sumner Miller
Posts: 7259
Threads: 506
Joined: December 12, 2015
Reputation:
22
RE: How I Learned to Love Pseudoscience
October 10, 2021 at 11:19 am
(October 10, 2021 at 11:09 am)Spongebob Wrote: (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
First of all, "science" is a method, not a institution, so it's not meaningful to say science is always right or wrong. The method is sound and produces results; that's the most you can say with confidence.
Your star statement is true, but don't confuse scientific methodology with technology. The reason we understand what we do about stars is because of telescopic technology. Without that we would still know very little about stars except for their movements. Their composition, distance, age, internal functioning, all of that would still be mostly speculation.
Scientific truth is contingent truth, testable and correctable.
|
