tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post6642663221871353149..comments2023-10-10T08:02:18.073-04:00Comments on Rationally Speaking: The pseudoscience black holeUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger44125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-10634697996616275692013-12-02T11:08:17.467-05:002013-12-02T11:08:17.467-05:00Okay, there are no examples. But that does not nec...Okay, there are no examples. But that does not necessarily mean there really is an event horizon for pseudoscience. IMHO, this black hole metaphor mistakes the context of justification with that of discovery. The verdict "pseudoscience" is a retrospective one, decided after the evidence is in and the case closed. The hypothetical discovery that might change this belongs into the context of discovery by definition. Scientists isolate it from its pseudo-scientific origin simply by definition (e.g., the parts of herbal medicine that turned out true). That way, everything that is now science proper has never been pseudo-science by definition. Joachim Dagghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00985198925581721229noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-86706189308943053582013-11-15T18:43:40.964-05:002013-11-15T18:43:40.964-05:00@ Massimo
> It’s a scientific theory, not a me...@ Massimo<br /><br />> It’s a scientific theory, not a metaphysical one. (Though, of course, as all science, it makes metaphysical assumptions. Sound ones, as far as I can see.) <<br /><br />Lawrence Krauss argued that if your theory doesn't make a testable prediction, then you're engaging in metaphysics, not physics. <br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07422653606947285608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-38544558393513059722013-11-15T06:58:10.528-05:002013-11-15T06:58:10.528-05:00Massimo,
«But that’s not enough. After all, that ...Massimo,<br /><br />«But that’s not enough. After all, that sort of thing happens regularly within standard science. We just call it bad science and throw it away or ignore it.»<br /><br />I agree. The mistake in itself is not enough. What would characterize pseudoscience is not the fact that it makes these kinds of mistakes (as you point out, standard science makes them as well) but the consistentely flawed response of the proponents of the particular claim at stake. Its the bad practice that puts the 'pseudo' in pseudoscience.<br /><br />«That’s more interesting, but again there are counter-examples: there is no such mistake in ufology (the theoretical notion is pretty clear), and yet it certainly is a pseudoscience.»<br /><br />It could be argued that ufology is ungrounded (when favouring one arbitrary explanation, such as visitors from outer space) and that, in some cases, it actively ignores simpler explanations for many atmospheric phenomena, thus being pseudoscience. But lets suppose that is not the case. Then it would be an example of parascience: their proponents cannot do anything with it: it's fruitless and untestable, and it will orbit the pseudoscience black hole for ever. It is definitely bad science, and would be an example of what I think parascience is. But perhaps not pseudoscience at all times: that depends on the ufologist.<br /><br />«But that can’t be true by definition, it has to be the result of a historical record of failure, right?»<br /><br />Yes. When I said that "a pseudoscientific claim cannot produce any valid results because it is pseudoscientific" I was wondering if it that wasn't actually true by definition. It mustn't be, and that's what I meant when I said that there could be a problem with the definition of a pseudoscience black hole. While thinking of counter-examples I realized that maybe there wasn't one by definition, which wouldn't be very helpful.<br /><br />«The co-authors of our book all see demarcation has an inherently fuzzy line (as opposed to a sharp one), so para-science is definitely part of it. The question is: if a para-scientific notion falls clearly on the pseudoscientific side, can it ever emerge again to fight another day?»<br /><br />If it falls in the pseudoscientific side, no. If it is parascientific without being pseudoscientific, yes.<br /><br />I think the demarcation itself is not as fuzzy as the specific topics of research, because it all depends on the practice history. First, I imagined parascience as the intersection of scientific practice and pseudoscientific practice. But it seems clear to me that it is the subsequent work that will determine the character of each particular field, so now I imagined as the border that separates science from pseudoscience:<br /><br />{science}&{pseudoscience} = {parascience}<br />or, as I prefer,<br />{science}&{pseudoscience} = {} <=> {pan-science} \ {science}U{pseudoscience} = {parascience}<br /><br />In the case of ufology, the demarcation seems fuzzy because the definition of ufology is fuzzy. What is ufology anyway? The study of weird stuff in the atmosphere? Very well: its broad definition allows for redemption that would ultimately converge towards atmosphere science, aviation psichophysiology or detection and ranging technology engineering. Rescuing the claim of "visitors from an alien civilization" is, in my opinion, impossible in scientific terms because that claim is not sound. It could be proved true, but it would be a direct discovery and not a confirmation of a preexisting, valid claim.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-60884308468767274422013-11-14T13:38:52.637-05:002013-11-14T13:38:52.637-05:00@Thomas Jones
I think we are broadly on the same ...@Thomas Jones<br /><br />I think we are broadly on the same page. I perhaps incorrectly took you to be saying that the Higgs field could be construed as equivalent to the luminiferous aether, and merely wanted to point out that the electromagnetic field would be more relevant.Disagreeable Mehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15258557849869963650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-50290834675928538632013-11-14T09:51:27.302-05:002013-11-14T09:51:27.302-05:00@Thomas Jones
>The Higgs field is not its repla...@Thomas Jones<br />>The Higgs field is not its replacement?<<br /><br />The Higgs field has nothing to do with aether. All fields permeate all of space, not just the Higgs field, and Higgs has very little if anything to do with the propagation of light.<br /><br />The electromagnetic field would be a better candidate.Disagreeable Mehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15258557849869963650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-19774370551494130612013-11-14T09:33:26.331-05:002013-11-14T09:33:26.331-05:00Hi Massimo,
>I don’t see how. Contra what you ...Hi Massimo,<br /><br />>I don’t see how. Contra what you say, it cannot be used to make predictions of any sort. It is a made up “explanation” entirely disconnected from the actual practice.<<br /><br />Sure it can make predictions. If I stick a needle in your meridians, you will feel less pain. If I stick a needle in random places, it won't really work.<br /><br />The predictions don't seem to work out, but it does make falsifiable predictions.<br /><br />It might also predict that we would some day find anatomical features corresponding to the meridians. We find no such features, so this prediction is also falsified.<br /><br />And there are predictions about how all sorts of different things affect the flow of Qi, such as food, etc.<br /><br />I don't see how you don't see how Qi can make predictions!<br /><br />>That may very well be. That’s why we are having this discussion…<<br /><br />I don't get it. That's why I gave my view... you say that like it's a bad thing or that I'm missing the point.<br />Disagreeable Mehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15258557849869963650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-75693072314426611672013-11-14T09:12:28.272-05:002013-11-14T09:12:28.272-05:00Philip,
> There are lists of dozens of "h...Philip,<br /><br />> There are lists of dozens of "hypothetical particles.” Are some of the particles in these lists “pseudoscience"? <<br /><br />Don’t know about lists in Wikipedia, but I don’t think any hypothetical particle postulated by professional physicists amounts to a pseudoscientific notion. Of course in time some of these may go away because of new theoretical or experimental results. But that’s just science working.<br /><br />Steve,<br /><br />> Pseudoscience is about method, and is by definition wrong because the method is not valid. So what you are really asking is if there was any pseudoscience that happened to turn out to be true, despite being pseudoscience. <<br /><br />Interesting point. But what was wrong, say, with the methods of Fleischmann and Pons? I mean beyond the fact that the results turned out to be spurious, when checked when others applied the same methods?<br /><br />Francisco,<br /><br />> By experimental mistake I mean an experimental malpractice: either ill-conceived experiments, statistical irrelevant results, or the simple dismissal of data that does not replicate the proposed results. <<br /><br />But that’s not enough. After all, that sort of thing happens regularly within standard science. We just call it bad science and throw it away or ignore it.<br /><br />> A theoretical mistake would be an ill-conceived definition, either too vage, contradictory, unfalsifiable or ungrounded to begin with, like freudianism. <<br /><br />That’s more interesting, but again there are counter-examples: there is no such mistake in ufology (the theoretical notion is pretty clear), and yet it certainly is a pseudoscience.<br /><br />> a pseudoscientific claim cannot produce any valid results because it is pseudoscientific <<br /><br />But that can’t be true by definition, it has to be the result of a historical record of failure, right?<br /><br />> If the black hole definition aims at defining pseudoscience, it will be self-referential and fail. If it is just a corollary, then finding an example of escape will depend on how the demarcation problem was settled. <<br /><br />Correct, Maarten and I are clearly looking at the second option.<br /><br />> Parascientific claims could then escape pseudoscience black holes. <<br /><br />The co-authors of our book all see demarcation has an inherently fuzzy line (as opposed to a sharp one), so para-science is definitely part of it. The question is: if a para-scientific notion falls clearly on the pseudoscientific side, can it ever emerge again to fight another day?<br /><br />Joachim,<br /><br />> Here's an example that straddled the event horizon for decades now, being seen as pseudo by some and good by other researchers depending on their taste as much as on science: <br />group selection. <<br /><br />Not even the harshest critics of group selection (the late George Williams, for instance) have ever talked about it in terms of pseudoscience. The notion has been shown decisively to be theoretically sound, it is only a question of whether (or how frequently) it actually occurs in nature.<br /><br />David,<br /><br />> I thought hypnotism through the 19th century might be an example - being initially popular as Mesmerism, being debunked, then reappearing. <<br /><br />That’s an interesting example. I don’t know a lot about the history (and current status) of hypnotism.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-68547027075208002852013-11-14T09:12:14.897-05:002013-11-14T09:12:14.897-05:00George,
> There is a difference between public...George,<br /><br />> There is a difference between publications in peer refereed journals and, say, "volumes and volumes of skeptical inquirer," which isn't. <<br /><br />Yes and no, when we are talking about pseudoscience, since most professional scientists simply don’t waste their time with things they don’t consider worth it. At any rate, I’m sure you are aware that there are also technical papers criticizing, for instance, Bem’s experiments.<br /><br />Alastair,<br /><br />> I guess this means that there is sound and unsound pseudoscience. <<br /><br />Sometimes I genuinely wonder whether you really are that naive, or you are playing a game. I lean toward the latter. Pseudoscience is unsound by definition, but there is sound and unsound metaphysics.<br /><br />> Does "string theory" qualify as sound or unsound metaphysics? <<br /><br />It’s a scientific theory, not a metaphysical one. (Though, of course, as all science, it makes metaphysical assumptions. Sound ones, as far as I can see.)<br /><br />Michael,<br /><br />yes, phrenology started out as legitimate science, so it’s not an example of escape from the black hole.<br /><br />> Today, modularity, the view that the mind is composed of distinct and specialised mechanisms, is the guiding assumption of most neuroscience and psychology. <<br /><br />Not really. Strong modularity is an assumption of evopsych, and it has pretty much been dispatched with. Which is not to say that the brain is a flat all-purpose device, of course. But the idea of tight (evolved for specific functions) modules is now dead.<br /><br />DM,<br /><br />> With the benefit of hindsight <<br /><br />That’s why these discussions can only take place within the context of the history of science / pseudoscience.<br /><br />> From the point of view of an ancient medical practitioner, the idea of Qi may have appeared to be warranted. <<br /><br />I don’t see how. Contra what you say, it cannot be used to make predictions of any sort. It is a made up “explanation” entirely disconnected from the actual practice.<br /><br />> my suspicion is that we don't see pseudoscience leaving the "black hole" very often because if we ever did then we would retroactively call it science. <<br /><br />That may very well be. That’s why we are having this discussion…<br /><br />Tony,<br /><br />> "But there is sound and unsound metaphysics.” Isn't this (partly) where the distinction lies? And explains the lack of movement from pseudoscience to science rather than the other way round? <<br /><br />Yes, that certainly explain some examples. But not all. For instance, ufology isn’t based on bad metaphysics, nor was cold fusion. They are just wrong notions that (some) people still insist in taking seriously way after their epistemic expiration date.<br /><br />Thomas,<br /><br />> Surprising: No mention of aether. <<br /><br />Not surprising. It was a perfectly fine scientific notion until disproven. And nobody has tried to resurrected after that.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-81160834508323554512013-11-14T07:01:46.783-05:002013-11-14T07:01:46.783-05:00Actually, the neutralino is a mixture of zino, hig...Actually, the neutralino is a mixture of zino, higgsino and bino... The wino is not neutral.<br />Filippo Nerihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01910861498359320434noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-36909859210826475512013-11-14T02:49:50.736-05:002013-11-14T02:49:50.736-05:00I thought hypnotism through the 19th century might...I thought hypnotism through the 19th century might be an example - being initially popular as Mesmerism, being debunked, then reappearing. The initial animal magnetism model was lost completely along the way, so it may or may not be useful.David Duffyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12142997170025811780noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-19527659650864053692013-11-13T14:41:36.152-05:002013-11-13T14:41:36.152-05:00Philip,
An instanton is a well defined mathematic...Philip,<br /><br />An instanton is a well defined mathematical concept: it a classical solution to a quantum field theory with imaginary time. Because imaginary time switches the sign of the metric, sometimes an instanton is called an Euclidean solution. Generally, it is topologically stable and localized in 4D. The name instanton derives from this localization at a particular (imaginary) time and space position. It is used for evaluating (in a semi-classical approximation) the tunneling probabilities between different states or, in quantum field theories, between different vacua. [The Wikipedia article “instanton” is not bad and shows how to use instantons to compute tunneling probabilities in ordinary QM. The algebra is right, but I have not checked factors of ½, etc.]<br /><br />As for the other particles in the list, all the particles with names ending in “ino” or starting with an “s” are supersymmetric partners of ordinary particles. For instance a photino is the (spin 1/2) partner of the photon. My favorite is the wino (partner of the W.) Also notable are selectrons, sleptons and squarks. You guess whose partners they are. The neutralino is a (quantum) mixture of wino, higgsino and bino. It was once believed to be the dark matter particle, but recent experiments have definitely shown that it does not exist. The LHC has not found the gluino either, so supersymmetry (SUSY) is probably out, meaning that string theory is also out.<br /><br />Because most of the universe is missing, people are now trying to find alternative (non-SUSY) explanations for the “dark sector.” The chameleon is one of such attempts. After the failure of SUSY, particle physics is in a very messy state, but I would not call even the most ridiculous theories pseudoscience. An exceptions are the anthropic-multiverse-based explanations of everything. They are, in fact, the worst possible kind of pseudoscience and, if they become established dogma, they would mean the end of science and the beginning of a new dark age.<br /><br />Personally, I am getting impatient with the axion, another dark matter candidate. If I should bet on what dark matter is, today I would chose the “sterile neutrino.” The LHC will not do much to improve our knowledge on neutrinos. I think the best bet in particle accelerators today is project-X from Fermilab. You will find a description of project-X in Lederman's last book, “Beyond the God Particle.” <br />Filippo Nerihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01910861498359320434noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-30053261964760502462013-11-13T11:42:38.260-05:002013-11-13T11:42:38.260-05:00P.S.: That was not meant as an answer to Alain, so...P.S.: That was not meant as an answer to Alain, soory, but as a general comment.Joachim Dagghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00985198925581721229noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-81479659731177092802013-11-13T11:16:16.491-05:002013-11-13T11:16:16.491-05:00Given the longstanding unsolved problem of demarca...Given the longstanding unsolved problem of demarcation, I wonder how the black hole of metaphor sucked you in. Do you think demarcation is problematic only in deciding when an issue enters the point of no return, but not vice versa because there is no return? Here's an example that straddled the event horizon for decades now, being seen as pseudo by some and good by other researchers depending on their taste as much as on science: <br />group selection. Joachim Dagghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00985198925581721229noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-26035004083877054502013-11-12T16:41:34.335-05:002013-11-12T16:41:34.335-05:00It would be nice it you don't use Cold Fusion ...It would be nice it you don't use Cold Fusion alias LENR as example of pseudo-science.<br />It is now under industrialization process, despite the pathologic denial by the scientific community, pathologic manipulation of peer review (which partially failed, like with Spawa papers and Toyota/Mitsubishi replications, and many others).<br /><br />http://www.lenrnews.eu/evidences-that-lenr-is-real-beyond-any-reasonable-doubt/<br /><br />Elforsk, the research consortium of swedish electric industry, publicly confirm it works, and say it in their corporate magazine "Elforsk Perspektiv 2013 nr2"<br />http://www.elforsk.se/Global/Trycksaker%20och%20broschyrer/elforsk_perspektiv_nr2_2013.pdf#page=4<br /><br />For the many companies acting in that domain you can read that<br />http://www.lenrnews.eu/lenr-summary-for-policy-makers/<br /><br />you can also try to find <br />"RIDICULED DISCOVERERS, VINDICATED MAVERICKS" <br />http://amasci.com/weird/vindac.html<br />for a shortlist of failed consensus ...<br />prepare to add Fleischmann&Pons soon...<br /><br />You raise anyway a good question...<br />There are fringe pseudo-science, but there is also mainstream pseudo-science, like Psychoanalysis and LENR-denial.<br />The consensus is not the good way to separate the good from the bad. Peer-review is not much better. Only experiments, reading the data may lead to the reality, but they are ignored.<br />Finally as said Nassim Nicholas taleb, time do the job of filtering.<br /><br />It can take centuries to recognize that evident fact like existence of germs causing puerperal fever, are real.<br />few years to recognize human flight.<br />few decades to recognize LENR<br />many decades to recognize continental drift.<br /><br />best regards.Alain_Cohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08352476615242858677noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-30719544237831227762013-11-12T15:01:12.316-05:002013-11-12T15:01:12.316-05:00@ JoeDuncan
> And even then the results only s...@ JoeDuncan<br /><br />> And even then the results only show a very slim effect.<<br /><br />What kind of nonsense is this? A very slim effect is still an effect, an effect with profound implications. (The primary reason why the evidence for psi is rejected by skeptics is because they believe it would undermine their materialistic worldview.)Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07422653606947285608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-85508306479113972302013-11-12T14:54:44.723-05:002013-11-12T14:54:44.723-05:00I don't think luminiferous aether qualifies as...I don't think luminiferous aether qualifies as pseudoscience except with the benefit of hindsight. It isn't actually *incorrect* per se, and indeed it's still possible to interpret the Michelson-Morley results and all of Einsteinian relativity in terms of aether if one so desires.<br /><br />Einsteinian relativity merely ("merely"?) requires far fewer assumptions, and is therefore preferable as an interpretation on the basis of parsimony.ianpollockhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15579140807988796286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-7902973295339909522013-11-12T14:52:38.113-05:002013-11-12T14:52:38.113-05:00@ selfawarepatterns
> Actually, Sagan was more...@ selfawarepatterns<br /><br />> Actually, Sagan was more skeptical of those things than that reference implies. From right after his mention of it in the cited book:<br />"I pick these claims not because I think they're likely to be valid (I don't), but as examples of contentions that *might* be true."<br />(The word 'might' was in italics in the original.)<br />'The Demon Haunted World", p 302. <<br /><br />The Wikipedia article specifically cites "<i>might</i> be true" (and the term "might": is italicized in the article). The point is that some skeptics are more open to the idea of psychic phenomena than Massimo would lead us to believe.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07422653606947285608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-10577561136326929262013-11-12T12:00:56.015-05:002013-11-12T12:00:56.015-05:00Alastair & George,
It is my understanding tha...Alastair & George,<br /><br />It is my understanding that the best "evidence" for any psi-phenomena come from meta-analyses and reviews over large numbers of carefully picked studies. This results in both a selection bias in the data being used and a ridiculously overpowered significance test. And even then the results only show a very slim effect.<br /><br />If the effect was real, surely it would show up without resulting to cherry picking and high power levels?JoeDuncanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14316501618006695088noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-15515985086608284892013-11-12T11:49:03.848-05:002013-11-12T11:49:03.848-05:00Actually, Sagan was more skeptical of those things...Actually, Sagan was more skeptical of those things than that reference implies. From right after his mention of it in the cited book:<br />"I pick these claims not because I think they're likely to be valid (I don't), but as examples of contentions that *might* be true."<br />(The word 'might' was in italics in the original.)<br />'The Demon Haunted World", p 302.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-77433870655339775392013-11-12T10:55:48.189-05:002013-11-12T10:55:48.189-05:00To sum up my opinion on pseudoscience black holes:...To sum up my opinion on pseudoscience black holes:<br /><br />It seems to me that, by definition, a pseudoscientific claim can only escape a black hole iff it i) is scientific or ii) it is not pseudoscientific.<br /><br />If the black hole definition aims at defining pseudoscience, it will be self-referential and fail. If it is just a corollary, then finding an example of escape will depend on how the demarcation problem was settled.<br /><br />The reason I explicitely mentioned two apparently equivalent conditions is that there may be a third option for characterizing a claim: a <i>parascientific claim</i>.<br /><br />A parascientific claim would then be a claim not yet matured, nor part of established scientific knowledge, but nevertheless open to criticism, anaylsis and refinement in an essentially non ad hoc way.<br /><br />This would not only mark the borderline (event horizon?) between science and pseudoscientce but also between long established scientific theories and honest out-of-the-box thinking and ongoing work. It would then be the continued insistence in deflecting criticism instead of an honest rebuttal of it that made a parascientific claim become pseudoscientific (and maybe the great divide is intelectual honesty after all).<br /><br />Parascientific claims could then escape pseudoscience black holes. Of course, if they orbit it for two long, they will eventually be dismissed as bad science but not necessarily pseudoscience.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-66006784949047592912013-11-12T10:22:49.413-05:002013-11-12T10:22:49.413-05:00Massimo- interesting question. I may do my own blo...Massimo- interesting question. I may do my own blog post on it. But quickly - I agree that the question is problematic. Just being speculative or yet unproven is not enough to be pseudoscience. Most sciences start out on the fringe until they accumulate sufficient evidence. Pseudoscience is about method, and is by definition wrong because the method is not valid. So what you are really asking is if there was any pseudoscience that happened to turn out to be true, despite being pseudoscience. <br /><br />Regarding acupuncture - I think this is an excellent example of a pure pseudoscience, simply one that has become fairly sophisticated. So sophisticated, in fact, that unless you have a fair degree of expertise in the science of acupuncture (even if you are a philosopher with an expertise is pseudoscience) you may miss it. <br /><br />Herbalism is a complicated example because it's more than one thing. Steve Novellahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15988524202904315630noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-36627785336142702952013-11-12T10:13:41.965-05:002013-11-12T10:13:41.965-05:00@ Massimo
> And something tells me that no mat...@ Massimo<br /><br />> And something tells me that no matter what link I’d send you [George] to (volumes and volumes of Skeptical Inquirer?) you’d say that those are just close minded people who don’t really look at the hard evidence. <<br /><br />There are some prominent skeptics (e.g. Sam Harris and Carl Sagan) who seem to disagree with your assessment of psychic phenomena.<br /><br />"<i>There also seems to be a body of data attesting to the reality of psychic phenomena, much of which has been ignored by mainstream science,[18]</i>" (source: pg. 41, "The End of Faith" by Sam Harris)<br /><br /><br />"<i>Carl Sagan suggested that there are three claims in the field of parapsychology which have at least some experimental support and "deserve serious study", as they "might be true":[106]<br /><br />(1) that by thought alone humans can affect random number generators in computers;<br /><br />(2) that people under mild sensory deprivation can receive thoughts or images "projected" at them;<br /><br />(3) that young children sometimes report the details of a previous life, which upon checking turn out to be accurate and which they could not have know about in any other way than reincarnation.[106]</i>"<br /><br />(source: Wikipedia: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parapsychology#Questionable_validity_of_parapsychology_research" rel="nofollow">Parapsychology</a>)Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07422653606947285608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-60999767086919397362013-11-12T10:01:14.448-05:002013-11-12T10:01:14.448-05:00There are lists of dozens of "hypothetical pa...There are lists of dozens of "hypothetical particles": <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Hypothetical_particles" rel="nofollow">en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Hypothetical_particles</a>. One of my favorites: the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chameleon_particle" rel="nofollow">chameleon</a>. Are some of the particles in these lists "pseudoscience"? (One, instanton, is called a "pseudoparticle" that appears in some theories of the origin of the universe.) It seems that when you get down to it the only thing separating science and pseudoscience is degree of usefulness.Philip Thrifthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03021615111948806998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-18476855643407832072013-11-12T07:34:31.422-05:002013-11-12T07:34:31.422-05:00"But there is sound and unsound metaphysics.&...<i><b>"But there is sound and unsound metaphysics."</b></i><br />Isn't this (partly) where the distinction lies? And explains the lack of movement from pseudoscience to science rather than the other way round? <br />Qi energy isn't <i>intrinsically</i> an unsound concept. Of course it is a ridiculous concept, we know that bodies (and physics) just don’t work that way. Much the same can be said of calor and phlogiston: we know that they are nonsense. <br />But we know that these are nonsense <i>now</i>, because of evidence that we now have. It strikes me that Qi, calor and phlogiston were perfectly reasonable conjectures before the evidence that they were nonsense arose. Acupuncture is pseudo scientific (partly) because it requires ignoring the evidence that Qi is nonsense. As evidence always arises rather than disappearing we can only move from “no evidence that x is nonsense” to “evidence that x is nonsense”, never the other way round.<br /><br />Incidentally Stephen Law has been using the “black hole” analogy for a bit now . His black holes differ from yours in that they are populated by people trapped into believing rubbish, as opposed to fields that cannot escape being rubbish. <br />Tony Lloydhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03740295390214409286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-37402251447938867612013-11-12T07:23:57.125-05:002013-11-12T07:23:57.125-05:00A copy-paste mistake: "By refusing to face cr...A copy-paste mistake: "By refusing to face criticism" should be "By questioning their critics".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com