Go Back   IceInSpace > General Astronomy > Astronomy and Amateur Science
Register FAQ Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
  #41  
Old 13-09-2010, 01:44 PM
CraigS's Avatar
CraigS
Unpredictable

CraigS is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 3,023
Quote:
Updated list of Pseudoscience distinctions (ie: ways of detecting pseudoscience):

(1) The non observation of a prediction made by science is proof that the science is wrong.
(2) An anomaly proves the science is wrong.
(3) Recitation of conspiracy theories against science. (Eg: the peer review process being a "boys club");
(4) No evidence of ever having gone through 'Peer Review' and announcements made in mainstream media, before journal publication.
(5) Fudged tests or data: No signs of data, which may be used to disprove the theory.
The list is growing !!
More contributions welcomed.

Cheers
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 13-09-2010, 08:12 PM
Esseth's Avatar
Esseth (Alan)
Worse or better?

Esseth is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 319
Whenever i am reading some new amazing breakthrough, i will read it with basket of logical fallacies in mind. Pretty much keeps me in the right direction.

There is so much out there that drives me nuts, but i just have to try to educate when i get the chance, and if it is only clearing up that there is no planet X coming to kill us for one person then that is enough.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 14-09-2010, 10:48 AM
CraigS's Avatar
CraigS
Unpredictable

CraigS is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 3,023
Quote:
Originally Posted by Esseth View Post
Whenever i am reading some new amazing breakthrough, i will read it with basket of logical fallacies in mind. Pretty much keeps me in the right direction.

There is so much out there that drives me nuts, but i just have to try to educate when i get the chance, and if it is only clearing up that there is no planet X coming to kill us for one person then that is enough.
Thanks for your reply, Alan - a good one !

Your skeptics link has me thinking. With our recent encounters with pseudoscientists, I think we have seen all of those 'logical fallacies' during our discussions. They have also been used against mainstream points, (including the use of the Latin terms ... added, no doubt, for impact).

I wonder whether pseudoscience can be argued without logical fallacies ?

It seems that these items are also 'tactical' by nature and anyone could resort to using them, either consciously or sub-consciously, regardless of the science they are presenting. Perhaps they simultaneously highlight the weaknesses of the argument .. &/or of the presenter's skills ? We really need to separate these two aspects, fairly early in the encounter.

Perhaps these are the only tools available to pseudos, due to the lack of rigour involved in the creation of the pseudo 'theories', in the first place ?

Interesting ...

Cheers & Rgds
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +10. The time is now 12:14 PM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.8.7 | Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Advertisement
Bintel
Advertisement