laklak wrote: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"

Are you CERTAIN?

Just how would one go about falsifying a proposition without empirical evidence? Reading chicken bones? Bare assertion? Wishing real hard?

RS

theropod_V_2.0 wrote:Just how would one go about falsifying a proposition without empirical evidence? Reading chicken bones? Bare assertion? Wishing real hard?

Popper did not argue that science can do without empirical evidence. He argued that empiricism is not its distinguishing feature. All sorts of pseudosciences proffer empirical evidence. Anti-vaccine campaign sites are full of it, for example.

Hermit wrote:The OP appears to be adapted from this piece.

Google's translation of the above: https://translate.google.com.au/translate?hl=en&sl=es&u=https://www.meneame.net/m/Art%25C3%25ADculos/reto-comunidad-como-discernir-certeza-entre-ciencia-cita-solo/5&prev=search

Déme certeza o déme cerveza!

(with apologies to Patrick Henry)

Hermit wrote:Anti-vaccine campaign sites are full of it, for example.

Full of what? They're full of claims.

campermon wrote:is this my special birthday bar/

A day late but my 'puter crashed last night. Sry.

Still, it's a caek day somewhere...



Happy belated caek day!

Cheers!

campermon wrote::lol:

Cheers!

So, you were born more or less as Apollo 13's service module was going kerplooey. It's an omen!

Cito di Pense wrote:

campermon wrote::lol:

Cheers!

So, you were born more or less as Apollo 13's service module was going kerplooey. It's an omen!

Yes!

Hermit wrote:

theropod_V_2.0 wrote:Just how would one go about falsifying a proposition without empirical evidence? Reading chicken bones? Bare assertion? Wishing real hard?

Popper did not argue that science can do without empirical evidence. He argued that empiricism is not its distinguishing feature. All sorts of pseudosciences proffer empirical evidence. Anti-vaccine campaign sites are full of it, for example.

Bullshit.

Anti-vax sites are full of bullshit CLAIMS of empirical evidence. Assertion of empirical evidence isn’t the same as actual in hand empirical evidence. I note you did not answer the question. By what means may a proposition be falsified if not via empirical evidence?

Try again.

RS

Hermit wrote:The OP appears to be adapted from this piece.

Google's translation of the above: https://translate.google.com.au/translate?hl=en&sl=es&u=https://www.meneame.net/m/Art%25C3%25ADculos/reto-comunidad-como-discernir-certeza-entre-ciencia-cita-solo/5&prev=search

Ah yes, good find. Although it is, of course, quite plausible that the OP is also the author of that piece.



ETA: damn aphasia... I managed to write 'author' as 'other'

Spearthrower wrote:

Hermit wrote:The OP appears to be adapted from this piece.

Google's translation of the above: https://translate.google.com.au/translate?hl=en&sl=es&u=https://www.meneame.net/m/Art%25C3%25ADculos/reto-comunidad-como-discernir-certeza-entre-ciencia-cita-solo/5&prev=search

Ah yes, good find. Although it is, of course, quite plausible that the OP is also the author of that piece.

My guess is that both pieces are penned by the same author.

I should have mentioned that I linked to it primarily because he bemoaned the fact that the Wikipedia editors (Spanish site) deleted his article titled Demarcation problem. That was in 2007. Considering the length of time he has held his curious opinion I think it is a bit of an obsession from which there is little chance of even a miniscule change of mind.

Spearthrower wrote:

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.

There's the meat.

Science produces repeatable results. Anything less than that, and it isn't very sciency.

The OP sounds like: One cannot tell the difference between science and pseudosciance (meaning science is also rubbish), therefore God.

Alan B wrote:The OP sounds like: One cannot tell the difference between science and pseudosciance (meaning science is also rubbish), therefore God.

I thought that was a possibility until I read his contribution to the Wikipedia.