Quote:
Originally Posted by renormalised
There's nothing wrong with questioning the prevailing paradigm. Where it does become wrong is when you take your line of reasoning from wholly unsubstantiated and entirely speculative premises. You should at least know what you're on about (that means, knowing the prevailing school of thought well enough to be able to comment on it) and then come at it from a well reasoned direction. Not from some fantasy crazed ego trip just because you like the sound of something or it's your belief it's right and everyone else has it wrong. If you have something to say and are questioning the results or interpretations of another thing, then make sure it makes sense and doesn't just dismiss or ignore everyone else offhand.
|
Or as practiced by pseudoscience.
(1) If you can't refute mainstream science directly then create a fictionalized version and refute that.
(2) Argue the science is wrong because it is dogmatic.
(3) Conspiracy theories of pseudoscientists mysteriously disappearing after challenging mainstream science.
(4) Accuse theoretical scientists (mathematicians in particular) of being in league with the devil.
(5) Suggest that scientists such as Einstein or Feynman were closet supporters of the pseudoscience in question.
(6) Claiming the pseudoscience is testable in the laboratory despite the fact the technology as yet is unavailable and possibly won't be for the next 2 or 3 centuries.
Etc, Etc ,etc.........
Steven