Science vs pseudo-science

[Fist and Faith]

Well, it mostly worked. I had to first split off the last two posts, wf's and Z's. Then I had to merge the two threads. wf was the "author" of the 2-post split topic, but it now says he was the author of the combined thread. Yet Z's original post is still the first post. I wonder if that affects the Threads Started stat.

[Zarathustra]

Thanks! I've edited my post to take out complaining about it being in the wrong thread, and to be less personal/confrontational.

I think this is an important issue, and love talking about it. In the course of formulating a rebuttal I thought it was a particularly good point that naturalism itself isn't falsifiable. That's an amazing thought--the underlying assumption of science isn't "scientific" (at least on the basis of this one criteria).

That's why there *is* philosophy of science. Philosophy forces us to constantly reexamine our basic assumptions.

[peter]

The answer to Z's original post (, from whence I have come directly is quite simple. There is no such thing as pseudo science. A thing is either science - or it isn't. It is science if it follows the accepted rigorous protocols of the scientific method and not science if it doesn't. A statement similarly is either a scientific statement, or it isn't. A scientific statement can be falsified (not that it necessarily will be, but it has to be possible to do so) where a non-scientific statement cannot be.

A pseudo science is mumbo jumbo. It's theses are not suceptible to the rigorous testing under controlled and repeatable conditions, the last being very important, that can lead to what may be considered to be true statements about the way the world is. If it were, and it's theses could be demonstrated as truth, then it would be a science.

Is it possible, with for example an improvement in our means of investigation of claims, our ability to observe detail, for mumbo jumbo to move into the realm of science? Well, I'm not aware that it's been done yet, but I suppose anything is possible.

I haven't posted this without looking at the previous posts in the thread out of disinterest in other people's posts, but because I wanted to come clean to the topic. Now I'll go back and see what has been said.

Ok. A surprising amount of agreement, meaning I actually took on board more of the poorly attended class I took on philosophy of science in another life. This question of whether things like SETI are science or not is interesting. I'd say not - or rather that it has produced no preliminary evidence one way or another that allows it as yet to form the the theses upon which it might move into the realm of science. It is at this point a fact gathering exercise, no more. It's justified because what we know of how things have worked here naturally beg the question as to whether they have worked in the same way elsewhere. It is an extension of science - it could become science - but it isn't there yet.

What about those guys who said they'd performed cold water fusion in a big media broohagh all those years ago. They presented their method and set-up, they published their results (not in the traditional manner granted), the experiment was repeated and the results found to be not repeatable. Was this science? My answer is yes. It was bad science - which for the purpose of this discussion should be clearly defined as a different thing from pseudo science - but science nevertheless.

(NB. It might be that it is bad science that represents a way bigger threat to our wellbeing than pseudo science in the long run, but this is a different topic really.)

[peter]

Interesting also to consider the relationship of science to pseudo science as compared to that of history to alternative history or conspiracy theory. It seems that both mainstream disciplines must generate their own anti-disciplines, sort of Shadow disciplines (though perhaps religion would serve as a better example in relation to science) and this probably tells us more about ourselves than the solid academic foundations of the more recognised subjects that the anti-disciplines seek to subvert.

[Zarathustra]

The answer to Z's original post (, from whence I have come directly is quite simple. There is no such thing as pseudo science. A thing is either science - or it isn't. It is science if it follows the accepted rigorous protocols of the scientific method and not science if it doesn't. A statement similarly is either a scientific statement, or it isn't. A scientific statement can be falsified (not that it necessarily will be, but it has to be possible to do so) where a non-scientific statement cannot be.

The line is not so clear. On the first page, I linked the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article that discusses how the definition of what science is has changed over time, just as scientific revolutions have overturned scientific "orthodoxy" over time. Previous areas of science have become pseudo-science as time passed.

Also, the distinction isn't always clear because scientists doing real science still use thinking and assumptions that might be called "pseudo-scientific," chasing hunches that seem interesting. For instance, many scientists have staked their careers on the idea that string theory will pan out, even though its claims have (mostly) been beyond the threshold of any possible measurement/observation. How do you falsify something you can't measure?

If the foundation principle of science--naturalism--can never be falsified, does that mean that all of science is mumbo jumbo?

Maybe there is a problem with falsification principle. After all, can you falsify it?

Is it possible, with for example an improvement in our means of investigation of claims, our ability to observe detail, for mumbo jumbo to move into the realm of science? Well, I'm not aware that it's been done yet, but I suppose anything is possible.

The idea that we could ever learn the interior composition of stars was once considered to be beyond any possible empirical evidence, our ability to measure. Does that mean it was "mumbo jumbo?" No, we discovered the necessary tool (spectrograph) and the correct explanation of its data to easily learn the chemical composition of stars.

The danger of the falsification principle is that it might just be a failure of our imagination.

This question of whether things like SETI are science or not is interesting. I'd say not - or rather that it has produced no preliminary evidence one way or another that allows it as yet to form the the theses upon which it might move into the realm of science. It is at this point a fact gathering exercise, no more. It's justified because what we know of how things have worked here naturally beg the question as to whether they have worked in the same way elsewhere. It is an extension of science - it could become science - but it isn't there yet.

But since we could never falsify the idea, how is it not "mumbo jumbo" to you? After all, sufficiently advanced aliens could mask their existence behind "cloaking" technology. Why isn't SETI an unscientific waste of time/money?

[peter]

The asking of questions is never pseudo science - only the answers arrived at by means that do not pass the rigorous criteria of the scientific method. Take the 'science' behind the practice of homeopathy. Something to do with small concentrations of substances that cause similar symptoms to the condition it seeks to be applied as a cure to, being by dilution rendered down to levels that are to all intents and purposes non-existent, but leave an 'essence' in the essentially water, that is given to the patient. This is all patent bullshit - it fly's in the face of every hard won advance in our battle for understanding of how things are, it undermines every principle of true science radiating out in ever widening circles from the point of it's fallacious conclusions, yet people buy into it. They buy into it to the point where I think it is now available in parts of the NHS, presented as part of the accredited practice of medicine.

It seems to me that the problem of the changing definition of 'what science is' is central but not key to the issue. True, the peripheries shift and change - things are encompassed, others slip out - but while this definition morphs this way and that, the central point, was it Popper or Khun made, remains unchallenged. And it is this that remains the bedrock. Statements are either scientific - or they are not. They can be falsified, or not. Scientific...... Metaphysical.

This leads of course to the problem you point out above. When someone said, in ages past, that the moon was made of green cheese, it was not falsifiable with the means available at the time. Was it a metaphysical statement that has moved to become a scientific one over the course of time - and if so how can we ever know that any such statement will not, at some future time move likewise into the realm of science. Will the statement 'God exists' be subject, at some future point, to scientific study. Will all that is now metaphysical move inexorably toward the scientific as our means of investigation get ever more refined and penetrating. Will homeopathy become science?

Sorry Z, I've got lost in here somewhere. Not unusually for me, solid ground with which I begin to post an answer crumbles away beneath my feet as my answer exposes the failings of my own argument. I post this as no more than a textbook example of wooly thinking masquerading as coherent cognition, and fooling the perpetrator in a way it could never achieve with the intended audience!

[Vraith]

But since we could never falsify the idea, how is it not "mumbo jumbo" to you?

This brings up a thing that [though I haven't read every post in detail, I haven't seen] I think needs accounting for/recognition. It's kinda a small thing..but not.
Sometimes [often] the how of the question, not the what, makes a difference---just a little twist/imagination.
The claim that there are aliens isn't really falsifiable...at least if the universe/multiverse is anything close to infinite.
But say it this way:
There are no intelligent aliens.
Now it is totally falsifiable. You just need to find one. The search is scientific.
A fantastically large group of things---in math/logic/science---are proved [sometimes ONLY proved] by contradiction.
I'm not sure how much math/science we could even do if it weren't for that fact/tool.

Heh...just in case someone is tempted---don't fall for the "You can't prove a negative" falsehood. And, BTW, if it were literally true, you couldn't prove it directly---because it is a negative and therefore cannot be proven.

Did anyone ever notice that the Achilles/Tortoise "paradox" could never have existed? Because before they started, they had to be 1/2 way to thte starting line, and before that 1/4 way, and 1/8th...imaginary races are impossible!
Oh, and before Zeno was born, he had to be 1/2 born, 1/4 born, 1/8th...
He could never be born!
Before he was made, the sperm had to be 1/2 way to the egg, 1/4, 1/8th...
He could never exist!

[Zarathustra]

V, just because you can rephrase a scientific theory as a negative, in order to make it falsifiable, doesn't mean that the negative phrasing is a scientific theory. SETI is not trying to falsify the claim that there are no aliens. No scientist holds the ridiculous idea that it's impossible for life to have evolved elsewhere in the universe. We don't need to rephrase our *reasonable* expectation that evolution happens elsewhere in the universe, into the *unreasonable* claim that earth is inexplicably unique, in order to make this idea scientific. I'd say the odds are much greater that the earth isn't unique. Drake's equation, etc.

Obviously, the falsification principle is not an absolute criterion for science vs pseudo-science. It works well for most cases, especially those involving supernatural causation, but that doesn't mean that any claim which isn't falsifiable must be supernatural.

[Vraith]

V, just because you can rephrase a scientific theory as a negative, in order to make it falsifiable, doesn't mean that the negative phrasing is a scientific theory.

No it doesn't automatically. It can, and often DOES enable a frame to do that, though.
AND a ton of ACTUAL proof is done PRECISELY in that way. [[especially in the early stages]]

AND wasn't the point to deal with how one tells the difference between science and pseudo-science? The negative doesn't MAKE it scientific, it's a tool to examine/communicate/reorient. It often massively simplifies both the question and the process.

The phrasing isn't the theory, the phrasing is a shift to a testable perspective within the theory.

[Fist and Faith]

The claim that there are aliens isn't really falsifiable...at least if the universe/multiverse is anything close to infinite.

One of my pet peeves. Even the Silver Surfer said it, for crissakes! There's no such thing as "close to infinite". If something isn't infinite, it's not close. In fact, it's infinitely less than infinite. You can't even say one thing is any amount closer to infinite than another thing is. A googol is not a googol-1 closer to infinite than 1 is.

[peter]

What is the .......ontological or epidemiological..... difference between proving something to be true (if such an idea has any real meaning anyway) by well, proving it to be true or proving it to be true by providing every other possibility to be false? I mean do the two methods lead to knowledge that is in some way different. If either Joe, Jane, Mary or Fred stole a chocolate bar is the knowledge that Joe stole it because we proved he did different from the knowledge that Joe stole it (notice the concentration on these three words) because we proved that Jane, Mary and Fred didn't. In fact, do we even truly have the knowledge 'Joe stole it' in the second case at all? Surely in the latter we can never preclude the existence of facts beyond our current understanding of how the world works (the flying spaghetti monster from the nth dimension materialised in the room and stole the chocolate bar) and therefore have no claim to knowledge of the truth based on such reasoning?


How this impacts on the difference between science and psuedo-science I have no idea............but I'm sure it does!

[Vraith]

The claim that there are aliens isn't really falsifiable...at least if the universe/multiverse is anything close to infinite.

One of my pet peeves. Even the Silver Surfer said it, for crissakes! There's no such thing as "close to infinite". If something isn't infinite, it's not close. In fact, it's infinitely less than infinite. You can't even say one thing is any amount closer to infinite than another thing is. A googol is not a googol-1 closer to infinite than 1 is.

Heh...that's a "well, duh, of course" thing. Didn't mean to poke your peeve.

Obviously, I meant it more colloquially...it is possible, [at least according some interpretations/models and the gaps/shortcomings/incomplete comprehension in our current state of knowledge] that our uni/multiverse is not, literally, infinite AND YET effectively so, in that there may be places/things in it that will almost certainly ALWAYS be beyond our ability to observe. Despite being finite.

OTOH, there are, in fact, different sizes/kinds of infinity. A countable infinity is infinite. But it is not as infinite as an uncountable infinity. It is infinitely smaller.
Fun fact in re another thread, the initial proof of that [there may be others/other kinds since, I'm not sure] is, I believe, a proof by contradiction.
More fun: there are schools of thought that say, roughly, many so called proofs and tools are nonsense...proof by contradiction being one of them...another that most infinities are nonsense. [it's more complicated than that...cuz what isn't?...it's a sort of Wittgensteinian, view/rule I think.

peter...controlling for/preventing/identifying [and maybe studying, if they are found] "confounding variables" and "known unknowns" and "unknown unknowns" are a big inherent problem for science...the method is intended to deal with them. That's much of its point/purpose. And one reason why one experiment/result rarely solves much of anything. Why replication is an important tool/method. Neither success nor failure in a singular case is determinative---but it's a necessary gear in the system.
So you're right that it matters. And in fact a whole heaping pile of the pseudo uses those problems to both "prove" what they say, AND to "pseudo-doubt/critique" the real science.
Pretty much the entirety of the tobacco industries denial of cancer link.
[[glyphosate may end up being that, too...hell MANY materials/chemicals will probably be that, in the end.]]
the denial of human-caused climate change,
the main reason many health problems of many kinds are/were claimed to be caused by certain fats and simple sugars are safe.
Most pop-nutrition/diet plans. [including almost all vitamins/supplements]
Jordan Peterson and his ilks man-help/psychology bullshit. [most other related crap]
Moral Foundations Theory---puts the fucking Piss and Shit back in PSeudo.
Not Even WRong,
Not Even a Theory.
Totally immoral.

EDITED TO ADD---forgot to say, Fisty, Silver Surfer was my bar-none favorite character in my constant-comic reading years...later things have bounced him around on the list, but still always my top 3 to 5.

[Fist and Faith]

Steve Englehart's run is among the very best comic books ever.

(Except when Firelord was attacking him and he had to run away, saying to himself (something like) "I can reflect or absorb a near infinite amount of energy. But I have to get the hell out of here."

[Wosbald]

+JMJ+

Jordan Peterson: The Alchemical Lemon explains the Crystalline Structure of Logos [Podcast]

Chris and Matt finally discuss the big kahuna Jordan Peterson by taking a deep dive into his extended 2017 interview on the Transliminal YouTube channel titled 'Ideology, Logos & Belief'.

They learn about the alchemical nature of lemons, whether a professional footballer is playing a game or living life, and Jordan Peterson's crystal clear views on the nature of Jesus & his resurrection.

Some people will say this episode is too cynical, but it's like … 'No. It isn't, man!' And furthermore, it's not at all obvious that we actually know … on a fundamental level … what cynicism is! It's mysterious and there is a lot we do not know.

Links

• Jordan Peterson's 2017 interview on Transliminal
• A Transcript of the Interview
• A Good (but very critical) article on JBP by Nathan Robinson at Current Affairs
• An article by JBP's old mentor suggesting his long term goal was to become a religious guru

--> --> Podcast Direct Link [Audio: 2.5 hrs]