Quote:
Originally Posted by CraigS
"Fraudulent" implies intent to deceive, in order to justify pseudoscience ?
|
In order to develop an alternate theory one needs to show an existing theory is incorrect.
I have never seen "pseudoscience" critique the theoretical aspects of mainstream science in order to show it is incorrect.
Some of the misleading techniques used by pseudoscience are.
(1) The non observation of a prediction made by science is proof that the science is wrong.
The deception here is that it conveniently ignores the experiment itself. The non observation may be due to experimental design, the experiment not being sensitive enough or the simply finding the evidence is like looking for a needle in the haystack.
A non observation is only a null result if the theory is shown to be wrong.
(2) An anomaly proves the science is wrong.
One doesn't have to go past the Pioneer anomaly as an example.
The irony is that the accuracy of Newtonian physics has made the anomaly apparent.
This doesn't make Newtonian physics wrong as pseudoscience demands, as there are a host of other possibliites that are conveniently ignored.
If the theory cannot explain the anomaly then the theory will evolve. The evolution of Newtonian physics into GR led to the explanation of the anomaly in Mercury's orbit. Newtonian physics didn't crash and burn.
Does push gravity, no gravity or PC provide a explanation for an anomaly or lack of experimental/observational evidence? No it doesn't yet the illogical argument that the problems experienced by mainstream science makes each one of the theories correct
by default seems to be the prevailing view of the authors. (How you get 3 distinctly different theories "right" is another issue
).
(3) Then there are the usual conspiracy theories against mainstream science. The peer review process being a "boys club", mainstream science turned into a religion suppressing new ideas etc.
Regards
Steven