Challenge:cite ONE paper that discerns Science from Pseudos.

How to tell Science from Pseudoscience with CERTAINTY?

Anything that doesn't fit anywhere else.

Moderators: Blip, The_Metatron

Challenge:cite ONE paper that discerns Science from Pseudos.

#1  Postby devhdb » Apr 14, 2020 4:44 pm

Image

“As a rule, I begin my lectures on Scientific Method by telling my students that
Scientific Method does not exist.
I add that I ought to know, having been for a time, the one and only professor of this non-existent subject within the British Commonwealth.” Karl Popper, Philosopher of Science.

Source: "Realism and the Aim of Science: From the Postscript to The Logic of Scientific Discovery" by Karl Popper, Routledge, 1983.
ISBN-10: 0-415-08400-8. 464 pp. Pages 5 and 6:
Extract @ Google Books: https://books.google.com/books?id=tlowU8nS2ygC


Hi all,

I consider myself a true skeptic in the sense that I know that I know nothing... and even I couldn't be sure of that, may I add. :-)

My philosophical and intellectual position is that there is NO WAY to tell science from pseudoscience with certainty. But I'm happily open to you changing my mind, of course.

This is a collective didactic experiment within the community meant to learn from everyone and not to attack anyone but belief systems. Hence, please don't feel offended if your scientific paradigms are questioned for it's nothing personal.

Please, debate nicely, politely and with well manners and I'll do the same. Thanks.



Without further ado, I would like to posit you 5 questions:


1. What are the necessary and sufficient conditions so that a certain assertion, precisely defined and without any kind of ambiguity can be considered scientific vs. a pseudoscientific one? Why don't you cite ONE paper on Philosophy of Science that allows us to follow a logical, rational and consistent method to determine with certainty between science and pseudoscience, that's to say a Demarcation Criterion? -> please cite from Google Scholar.

2. In case that you affirm to be able to discern between science and pseudoscience with certainty, then: what logical, rational and consistent method do you follow to affirm whether String Theory or the Multiverse hypothesis are science or pseudoscience? Are they falseable? And, if they are falseable, how exactly? What type of observable 'datum', directly or indirectly mensurable would refute each of them?

3. What logical, rational and consistent algorithm do you follow to be able to distinguish if Matter and Consciousness are one and the same thing?

4. Can you describe the redness of red as if you were describing it to a man born with blind, from the subjective experience of a self-conscious 'I', 'emerged'? from a viscous matter called brain?

5. What degree of certainty (in percentage) would you demand from a judge to justify his sentence to you for condemning you to indemnify with $100.000 and 5 years of prison for you having slandered the honor of a certain homeopath calling her 'pseudoscientific' without justifying which Demarcation Criterion did you use to discern between Science and Pseudoscience with certainty? 70%?, 95% of certainty? What value (precisely) would leave you satisfied so that your prison sentence would be rationally justified?



My answers:


1. I DON'T KNOW.
2. I DON'T KNOW.
3. I DON'T KNOW.
4. NO.
5. I DON'T KNOW.




FAQ:

Science is what follows THE Scientific Method.

Fine.

In that case:

How do you precisely define THE Scientific Method?
Is it valid for natural sciences and for social sciences as well?

Is Falsifiability a necessary and sufficient condition for a certain assertion to be considered scientific? If not, why?

Most importantly: could you please rebut each one of Karl Popper's 3 arguments against the existence of the Scientific Method?

i.e.:

The Preface to Popper's Realism and the Aim of Science (1983)
A talk to a meeting of the Fellows of the Centre for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences at Stanford in November 1956.


I assert that no scientific method exists in any of these three senses. To put it in a more direct way:

(1) There is no method of discovering a scientific theory.
(2) There is no method of ascertaining the truth of a scientific hypothesis, i. e., no method of verification.
(3) There is no method of ascertaining whether a hypothesis is “probable”, or probably true.


—Realism and the Aim of Science, Karl Popper, p. 6

I believe that the so-called method of science consists in this kind of criticism [severe]. Scientific theories are distinguished from myths merely in being criticizable, and in being open to modifications in the light of criticism. They can be neither verified nor probabilified.
—Realism and the Aim of Science, Karl Popper, p. 7

This alleged but non-existent method [of science] is that of collecting observations and then “drawing conclusions” from them. It is slavishly aped by some historians who believe that they can collect documentary evidence which corresponding to the observations of natural science, forms the “empirical basis” for their conclusions.

This alleged method is one that can never be put into effect: you can neither collect observations nor documentary evidence if you do not first have a problem.
—Objective Knowledge, Karl Popper, p. 186

“What do I teach my students? And how can I teach them?”

Source:
"Realism and the Aim of Science: From the Postscript to The Logic of Scientific Discovery", by Karl Popper, Routledge, 1983.
ISBN-10: 0-415-08400-8. 464 pp. Pages 5 and 6:

Extract @ Google Books: /books?id=tlowU8nS2ygC


Also:

"The theory of natural selection may be so formulated that it is far from tautological. In this case it is not only testable, but it turns out to be NOT STRICTLY UNIVERSALLY TRUE. There seem to be exceptions, as with so many biological theories; and considering the random character o f the variations on which natural selection operates, the occurrence of exceptions is not surprising. Thus not all phenomena of evolution are explained by natural selection alone. Yet in every particular case it is a challenging research program to show how far natural selection can possibly be held responsible for the evolution of a particular organ or behavioral program.
Karl Popper"


Sources:
[1] Popper, Karl (1976). Unended Quest. La Salle: Open Court. ISBN 0875483437.
[2] Autobiography, Karl Popper. "I consider darwinism as metaphysics and as a research program. It is metaphysics because it is NOT TESTABLE."
Google Books: /books?id=NyCEnehPMd8C&lpg=PP1&dq=unended ques
[3] Miller, David (1985). Popper selections. pp. 239-246. ISBN 978-0691020310.
[4] Evolutionary epistemology, rationality, and the sociology of knowledge, by Karl Popper. pp. 143-147.
Google Books: /books?id=QnFiTrCzg5oC&lpg=PA143&ots=c7x_hTlgH


Image


Happy debate! :think:
devhdb
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 1

Guatemala (gt)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Challenge:cite ONE paper that discerns Science from Pseudos.

#2  Postby felltoearth » Apr 14, 2020 5:01 pm

Is there anything in the universe you can be reasonably confident of? If so, why?
"Walla Walla Bonga!" — Witticism
User avatar
felltoearth
 
Posts: 13211
Age: 52

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Challenge:cite ONE paper that discerns Science from Pseudos.

#3  Postby Spearthrower » Apr 14, 2020 6:01 pm

My philosophical and intellectual position is that there is NO WAY to tell science from pseudoscience with certainty.


Reality has this way of informing you when your ideas about it are completely off base. That's a rather vital element of science compared to pseudoscience: it works.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27415
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Challenge:cite ONE paper that discerns Science from Pseudos.

#4  Postby Spearthrower » Apr 14, 2020 6:06 pm

Please, debate nicely, politely and with well manners and I'll do the same.


While I have no desire to discuss in any contradiction to these; I want to be clear to you that you don't actually get to dictate the manner of peoples' response.

You've just joined this forum, and in so doing you signed a Forum User Agreement - that is the only requirement for posting on this website, not your preferences, particularly not when you've only just joined. Feel free to be a model of the type of discussion you want, but don't be thinking you can oblige others to perform on command.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27415
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Challenge:cite ONE paper that discerns Science from Pseudos.

#5  Postby campermon » Apr 14, 2020 6:19 pm

devhdb wrote:

I consider myself a true skeptic in the sense that I know that I know nothing...


i'm pretty sure of some stuff but would still claim to be a skeptic.

how does that work then/

btw - welcome :cheers:


edit - my shift key has stopped working :o
Scarlett and Ironclad wrote:Campermon,...a middle aged, middle class, Guardian reading, dad of four, knackered hippy, woolly jumper wearing wino and science teacher.
User avatar
campermon
RS Donator
 
Posts: 17372
Age: 50
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Challenge:cite ONE paper that discerns Science from Pseudos.

#6  Postby Macdoc » Apr 14, 2020 6:48 pm

I consider myself a true skeptic in the sense that I know that I know nothing...


self professed ignorance is not a virtue.

Uninformed skepticism is just another term for ignorance.

Bohr could be skeptical of Einstein. :coffee:
Travel photos > https://500px.com/macdoc/galleries
EO Wilson in On Human Nature wrote:
We are not compelled to believe in biological uniformity in order to affirm human freedom and dignity.
User avatar
Macdoc
 
Posts: 16938
Age: 72
Male

Country: Canada/Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Challenge:cite ONE paper that discerns Science from Pseudos.

#7  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Apr 14, 2020 8:26 pm

Happy birthday Campermon! :cheers:
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 30864
Age: 30
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Challenge:cite ONE paper that discerns Science from Pseudos.

#8  Postby laklak » Apr 14, 2020 8:30 pm

Is it campy's birthday? WOOT! Happy Happy Joy Joy!
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way. - Mark Twain
The sky is falling! The sky is falling! - Chicken Little
I never go without my dinner. No one ever does, except vegetarians and people like that - Oscar Wilde
User avatar
laklak
RS Donator
 
Name: Florida Man
Posts: 20399
Age: 66
Male

Country: The Great Satan
Swaziland (sz)
Print view this post

Re: Challenge:cite ONE paper that discerns Science from Pseudos.

#9  Postby campermon » Apr 14, 2020 8:46 pm

laklak wrote:Is it campy's birthday? WOOT! Happy Happy Joy Joy!


:cheers: :cheers: :cheers: :cheers: :cheers: :drunk: :drunk: :drunk:
Scarlett and Ironclad wrote:Campermon,...a middle aged, middle class, Guardian reading, dad of four, knackered hippy, woolly jumper wearing wino and science teacher.
User avatar
campermon
RS Donator
 
Posts: 17372
Age: 50
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Challenge:cite ONE paper that discerns Science from Pseudos.

#10  Postby campermon » Apr 14, 2020 8:47 pm

is this my special birthday bar/

:drunk:
Scarlett and Ironclad wrote:Campermon,...a middle aged, middle class, Guardian reading, dad of four, knackered hippy, woolly jumper wearing wino and science teacher.
User avatar
campermon
RS Donator
 
Posts: 17372
Age: 50
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Challenge:cite ONE paper that discerns Science from Pseudos.

#11  Postby campermon » Apr 14, 2020 8:48 pm

Thomas Eshuis wrote:Happy birthday Campermon! :cheers:


:cheers: :cheers: :cheers: :cheers: :cheers:
Scarlett and Ironclad wrote:Campermon,...a middle aged, middle class, Guardian reading, dad of four, knackered hippy, woolly jumper wearing wino and science teacher.
User avatar
campermon
RS Donator
 
Posts: 17372
Age: 50
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Challenge:cite ONE paper that discerns Science from Pseudos.

#12  Postby theropod_V_2.0 » Apr 14, 2020 8:55 pm

Repeated positive results of testing observational reality which return empirical evidence. Full stop.

RS
“Sleeping in the hen house doesn’t make you a chicken”.
User avatar
theropod_V_2.0
 
Name: R.A.
Posts: 506

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Challenge:cite ONE paper that discerns Science from Pseudos.

#13  Postby campermon » Apr 14, 2020 8:56 pm

theropod_V_2.0 wrote:Repeated positive results of testing observational reality which return empirical evidence. Full stop.

RS


word

:cheers:
Scarlett and Ironclad wrote:Campermon,...a middle aged, middle class, Guardian reading, dad of four, knackered hippy, woolly jumper wearing wino and science teacher.
User avatar
campermon
RS Donator
 
Posts: 17372
Age: 50
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Challenge:cite ONE paper that discerns Science from Pseudos.

#14  Postby campermon » Apr 14, 2020 8:57 pm

i think the op is here to troll.
Scarlett and Ironclad wrote:Campermon,...a middle aged, middle class, Guardian reading, dad of four, knackered hippy, woolly jumper wearing wino and science teacher.
User avatar
campermon
RS Donator
 
Posts: 17372
Age: 50
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Challenge:cite ONE paper that discerns Science from Pseudos.

#15  Postby Hermit » Apr 14, 2020 9:52 pm

devhdb wrote:
“As a rule, I begin my lectures on Scientific Method by telling my students that
Scientific Method does not exist.
I add that I ought to know, having been for a time, the one and only professor of this non-existent subject within the British Commonwealth.” Karl Popper, Philosopher of Science.

Source: "Realism and the Aim of Science: From the Postscript to The Logic of Scientific Discovery" by Karl Popper, Routledge, 1983.
ISBN-10: 0-415-08400-8. 464 pp. Pages 5 and 6:
Extract @ Google Books: https://books.google.com/books?id=tlowU8nS2ygC

Nice find. Unfortunately, by taking that snippet out of context it is easy to make it look like it means what it really does not.

The context of this piece is Popper's opposition to logical empiricism, logical positivism and neopositivism - basically naïve empiricism, which was (and still is) held by many a clear method to arrive at objective and certain knowledge. Far from denying that there is no such thing as a scientific method, Popper meant to say that naïve empiricism is not it, and he did agree with some of its key features, namely that hypotheses contain an element of prediction and outcomes of experiments must be replicable. Popper also insisted that they must be falsifiable/refutable. Falsifiability was by no means original to Popper, but he made a big deal of it.

Hence one of his best known collection of essays and lectures, titled Conjectures and Refutations. The entire book is dedicated to tease out what is science and how it can be distinguished from pseudoscience. He made that abundantly clear right from the start (pp 33/34)
'When should a theory be ranked as scientific?' or 'Is there a criterion for the scientific character or status of a theory?' The problem which troubled me at the time was neither, 'When is a theory true?' nor, 'When is a theory acceptable?' My problem was different. I wished to distinguish between science and pseudo-science; knowing very well that science often errs, and that pseudo-science may happen to stumble on the truth. I knew, of course, the most widely accepted answer to my problem: that science is distinguished from pseudo-science--or from 'metaphysics'--by its empirical method, which is essentially inductive, proceeding from observation or experiment. But this did not satisfy me. On the contrary, I often formulated my problem as one of distinguishing between a genuinely empirical method and a non-empirical or even a pseudo-empirical method--that is to say, a method which, although it appeals to observation and experiment, nevertheless does not come up to scientific standards. The latter method may be exemplified by astrology, with its stupendous mass of empirical evidence based on observation--on horoscopes and on biographies.

Far from arguing that there is no way of distinguishing science from Pseudoscience, he said that the line of demarcation is falsibility. Science has it. Pseudoscience does not. I recommend you read up on that yourself. You'll be done by the time you get to page 59.

devhdb wrote:...there is NO WAY to tell science from pseudoscience with certainty.

You'll find the holy grail before you know anything with certainty.


theropod_V_2.0 wrote:Repeated positive results of testing observational reality which return empirical evidence. Full stop.

:lol: Confirmation is the staple of Marxists and psychoanalysts
The most characteristic element in this situation seemed to me the incessant stream of confirmations, of observations which 'verified' the theories in question; and this point was constantly emphasized by their adherents. A Marxist could not open a newspaper without finding on every page confirming evidence for his interpretation of history; not only in the news, but also in its presentation--which revealed the class bias of the paper--and especially of course in what the paper did not say. The Freudian analysts emphasized that their theories were constantly verified by their 'clinical observations'. As for Adler, I was much impressed by a personal experience. Once, in 1919, I reported to him a case which to me did not seem particularly Adlerian, but which he found no difficulty in analysing in terms of his theory of inferiority feelings, although he had not even seen the child. Slightly shocked, I asked him how he could be so sure. 'Because of my thousandfold experience,' he replied; whereupon I could not help saying: 'And with this new case, I suppose, your experience has become thousand-and-one-fold.'

Popper, Conjectures and Refutations, 1963, p 35
God is the mysterious veil under which we hide our ignorance of the cause. - Léo Errera


God created the universe
God just exists
User avatar
Hermit
 
Posts: 3710
Age: 67
Male

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Challenge:cite ONE paper that discerns Science from Pseudos.

#16  Postby laklak » Apr 14, 2020 10:22 pm

campermon wrote:is this my special birthday bar/

:drunk:


Yes. This is the birthday bar for babies!

Would you like drink, sir?
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way. - Mark Twain
The sky is falling! The sky is falling! - Chicken Little
I never go without my dinner. No one ever does, except vegetarians and people like that - Oscar Wilde
User avatar
laklak
RS Donator
 
Name: Florida Man
Posts: 20399
Age: 66
Male

Country: The Great Satan
Swaziland (sz)
Print view this post

Re: Challenge:cite ONE paper that discerns Science from Pseudos.

#17  Postby The_Piper » Apr 14, 2020 10:57 pm

TLDR
"Tourists make their way thru the foothill landscapes as if blind to all their best beauty, and like children seek the emphasized mountains..." John Muir
Self Taken Pictures of Wildlife
Self Taken Pictures of Scenery
User avatar
The_Piper
 
Name: Fletch F. Fletch
Posts: 27329
Age: 45
Male

Country: Chainsaw Country
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Challenge:cite ONE paper that discerns Science from Pseudos.

#18  Postby Hermit » Apr 14, 2020 11:56 pm

The_Piper wrote:TLDR

Not really worth reading anyway. Like the recently departed nevets, devhdb cites snippets out of context and gives it a meaning its original author never intended. I mentioned one example in post #15. Here is another. Quoting Popper again:
devhdb wrote:
This alleged but non-existent method [of science] is that of collecting observations and then “drawing conclusions” from them. It is slavishly aped by some historians who believe that they can collect documentary evidence which corresponding to the observations of natural science, forms the “empirical basis” for their conclusions.

This alleged method is one that can never be put into effect: you can neither collect observations nor documentary evidence if you do not first have a problem.
—Objective Knowledge, Karl Popper, p. 186

Looks like Popper is saying that there is no scientific method, right? Wrong. Once again, Popper is not claiming that scientific knowledge cannot be distinguished from pseudoscience. He is merely repeating his thesis that the distinguishing feature is not naïve empiricism but falsificationism. If a hypothesis does not allow for the possibility of being falsified or refuted, it is not scientific. devhdb achieves the opposite effect by not including the sentence immediately preceding the ones he quoted, It's actually on the same page.
Karl R. Popper wrote:... I should go even further and accuse at least some professional historians of ‘scientism’: of trying to copy the method of natural science, not as it actually is, but as it is wrongly alleged to be.

(Italics in the original. Underline added by me.)
God is the mysterious veil under which we hide our ignorance of the cause. - Léo Errera


God created the universe
God just exists
User avatar
Hermit
 
Posts: 3710
Age: 67
Male

Print view this post

Re: Challenge:cite ONE paper that discerns Science from Pseudos.

#19  Postby Hermit » Apr 15, 2020 12:39 am

God is the mysterious veil under which we hide our ignorance of the cause. - Léo Errera


God created the universe
God just exists
User avatar
Hermit
 
Posts: 3710
Age: 67
Male

Print view this post

Re: Challenge:cite ONE paper that discerns Science from Pseudos.

#20  Postby laklak » Apr 15, 2020 1:00 am

A few indicators that it's pseudoscience.

- It's by a "noted scientist". Sometimes even a "noted NASA scientist"
- other scientists are "shocked"
- the mainstream media doesn't want you to know
- there's "one simple trick"

Oh I almost forgot the most important.

You post your Nobel winning, earth shattering theories on some tiny little backwater forum.
Last edited by laklak on Apr 15, 2020 1:11 am, edited 1 time in total.
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way. - Mark Twain
The sky is falling! The sky is falling! - Chicken Little
I never go without my dinner. No one ever does, except vegetarians and people like that - Oscar Wilde
User avatar
laklak
RS Donator
 
Name: Florida Man
Posts: 20399
Age: 66
Male

Country: The Great Satan
Swaziland (sz)
Print view this post

Next

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest