What makes a hypothesis 'pseudoscience'?

[Extropia DaSilva]

I was wondering, how does one distinguish 'science' from 'psuedo' science?

Is it not enough that a hypothesis can be proved wrong? Because it seems to me that something like the 'electric sun' is NOT pseudoscience because it can be shown to be in error. Or is it something to do with the lack of quantitive data put forward by its proponents?

[Tog]

My knee jerk definition is:

Science asks: How do I see if that really works the way I think it does?
Pseudoscience asks: How to I prove that works the way I think it does?

Then both set off to begin. If you start with the conclusion, it's not science.

[Argos]

When a hypothesis fails to agree with observation and is not abandoned, it enters the realm of pseudo-science.

Science is about confronting a hypothesis with observation. If it fails it must be discarded. If it succeeds you are allowed to keep it, until the next test.

[iantresman]

I was wondering, how does one distinguish 'science' from 'psuedo' science?

Is it not enough that a hypothesis can be proved wrong? Because it seems to me that something like the 'electric sun' is NOT pseudoscience because it can be shown to be in error. Or is it something to do with the lack of quantitive data put forward by its proponents?

As far as I am aware, there is no scientific definition of pseudoscience. There are a number of guidelines, but to a certain extent, these are subjective, and applied differently to scientific views that are considered the majority view, and the minority view. For example:

• Pseudoscience is supposed to include ideas that are not testable and falsifiable. So mainstream science will criticize the Electric Sun as pseudoscience since there are no proposed test that could falsify it. On the other hand, String theory is also not testable and falsifiable, but is not considered pseudoscience. [Contentious statement alert]: I would argue the same for Dark matter, Dark energy, Black Holes, neutron stars, the Big Bang, Cosmological redshifts.
• There are other factors, such as "following the scientific method" which includes several criteria. See the Wiki article on Pseudoscience (but note that some of the references do not support the statements they reference)

I think it is also worth mentioning "Pseudoskepticism", which notes that the term pseudoscience is sometimes used inappropriately.

Regards,
Ian Tresman

[Cougar]

"If a theory is crazy, or unorthodox, or seemingly bizarre, that does not make it pseudoscientific. Crackpot and pseudoscientific theories are bizarre in a particular way. They tend to ignore long-established scientific ideas. They operate in a world of their own, not in the world of scientific discourse." -- Richard Morris

[Cougar]

...On the other hand, String theory is also not testable and falsifiable, but is not considered pseudoscience.

I see Lee Smolin has a new(?) book entitled The Trouble With Physics, and string theory is apparently the trouble he's talking about. He thereafter makes a case for loop quantum gravity.

In my mind, string theory is, at this point, pure mathematics. As Gell-Mann says, "...applied mathematics [concerns] itself with the structures that occur in scientific theories, while pure mathematics covers not only those structures but also all the ones that might have occurred (or might yet turn out to occur) in science." How many times have the mathematicians developed beautiful and elegant pure mathematical systems that only later are found to have particular application to some daunting problem in the real world that has the physicists stumped?

I would argue the same for Dark matter, Dark energy, Black Holes, neutron stars, the Big Bang, Cosmological redshifts.

Boy, you're really missing out on all the fun, Ian!

[Nereid]

The question in the OP - the narrow one, about hypotheses and pseudoscience - is, I feel, unanswerable.

Hypotheses, by themselves, are neither science, nor pseudoscience, or anything else (except hypotheses).

It's what you do with an hypothesis that may distinguish science from pseudoscience.

More generally, 'what's the difference between' questions are one kind of demarcation problem, and I think that those who study this have concluded that there is no general answer. However, specific fields of science - such as astronomy, astrophysics, physics, cosmology - can, and do, have pretty clear criteria for deciding between science and pseudoscience (the link contains a succinct summary).

IMHO, the major difference, as shown by (most) ATM ideas, as presented here, is that of quantification - few ATM ideas, as presented, are quantified; instead you read lots of words and handwaving. For a science that is as quintessentially quantitative as astronomy, that's an almost automatic sign that the ideas - as presented - cannot be science.

The Electric Sun ATM idea is an excellent example - for the most part, no proponent was willing, or able, to present any aspect of the idea in a quantitative form. And where such quantifications were presented, they have been shown to be inconsistent with good observational results, or internally inconsistent (i.e. the quantitative conclusions do not follow, logically, from the stated theoretical foundations), or both. IOW, they failed to meet two of the three general criteria for being science (as well as a number of the other 'highly desirable' features).

[Nereid]

[snip]

[Contentious statement alert]: I would argue the same for Dark matter, Dark energy, Black Holes, neutron stars, the Big Bang, Cosmological redshifts.

[snip]

Are you prepared to so argue, here in BAUT's ATM section, iantresman?

If so, would you like to choose one, and start a thread on it? "Black Holes are pseudoscience" perhaps.

(I don't think "the Big Bang" would be a good choice - it's a nice shorthand, but you'd need to spend quite some time defining it, in terms of what consistitutes concordance cosmological models, before you could even start to make your case.)

[iantresman]

If so, would you like to choose one, and start a thread on it? "Black Holes are pseudoscience" perhaps.

Perhaps "Black Holes are unverifiable", but I concede that all the evidence is consistent with the conclusions.

Regards,
Ian Tresman

[blueshift]

Pseudoscience can pop up in many areas. One such place is to consider one of the origins of poetry.

When children run off and play they can encounter things along the way that puzzle them and they have no words to describe what it is that they see. Upon returning they point off to the distance and try and describe what and where they saw the puzzling situation or new animal or machine,etc. What they have seen is new to them and the only way they can make a good description is to use old words and make comparisons...

Something is "like something"...something "implies" something. Or something has some human-like characteristic that comes close to describing its actions...
Simile, metaphor, metonymy. What poetry does is to knock on the door or science, inviting science to answer the puzzle the poet has brought it.

James Clerk Maxwell used pulleys and gears to describe how EM worked but threw the metaphor away once he realized his formulas. Kepler held to views that each planet had a particular frequency and that their orbital arrangements could be described with Platonic solids circumscribed within each other. All such descriptions were put aside.

However, there are some who wish to never let go of the metaphor and see the world as something that matches enough of its descriptions to warrant calling it eternal truth.

[Nereid]

If so, would you like to choose one, and start a thread on it? "Black Holes are pseudoscience" perhaps.

Perhaps "Black Holes are unverifiable", but I concede that all the evidence is consistent with the conclusions.

Regards,
Ian Tresman

Hmm, so what constitutes "verification" (or "verifiability"), in your view? To the extent that you understand it, how does your view of verifiability differ from the standard used in modern physics, astronomy, astrophysics, or cosmology?

How about "neutron stars are pseudoscience"? Or would your reply be 'perhaps "neutron stars are unverifiable"' too?

[Gillianren]

Pseudoscience can pop up in many areas. One such place is to consider one of the origins of poetry.

When children run off and play they can encounter things along the way that puzzle them and they have no words to describe what it is that they see. Upon returning they point off to the distance and try and describe what and where they saw the puzzling situation or new animal or machine,etc. What they have seen is new to them and the only way they can make a good description is to use old words and make comparisons...

Well, yes, but this poet understands that numbers are important in description as well, for science.

[bigsplit]

psuedo science is anything I might propose. That does not mean that it could not be scientific, what it means is that I do not have the knowledge, expertise or equipment to do the work necessary to be called science.

Pseudoscience are ideas and conclusion without the work.

Science is actually doing the work necessary to strengthen an idea. I have come to a conclusion that all hypothesis are science as it is an educated guess based on work done.

I do not think Pseudoscience is necessarily crackpot, but it certainly can be. I also believe that pseudoscience is not something to be condemned necessarily, most do show great insight even if incorrect....that does not make them right, but it does not make the wrong either.

As for the contradiction of long held scientific views...I think that is a dangerous position and expresses a level of dogma.

[iantresman]

Hmm, so what constitutes "verification" (or "verifiability"), in your view? To the extent that you understand it, how does your view of verifiability differ from the standard used in modern physics, astronomy, astrophysics, or cosmology?

How about "neutron stars are pseudoscience"? Or would your reply be 'perhaps "neutron stars are unverifiable"' too?

I actually don't like the word "pseudoscience", it's rather indiscriminate. Saying that a subject is pseudoscience doesn't really say why.

As you've rightly pointed out yourself, saying, for example, that a theory doesn't have quantitative predictions, is far more specific.

Regards,
Ian Tresman

[Cougar]

As for the contradiction of long held scientific views...I think that is a dangerous position and expresses a level of dogma.

The quote was, "They [pseudoscientists] tend to ignore long-established scientific ideas. They operate in a world of their own..." This does not mean that science must always retain "long-established scientific ideas." It means that pseudoscience blithely ignores long-established scientific ideas.

I also believe that pseudoscience is not something to be condemned necessarily, most do show great insight even if incorrect....that does not make them right, but it does not make the wrong either.

Well, that's an awfully conflicted position. If it's incorrect, it's wrong! If it's incorrect, it must be lacking in "great insight." I think you're just working with the wrong definition. Pseudoscience IS something to be condemned. It is misleading. It is misinformation. It is fallacy masquerading as science. What you're doing, apparently, is attempted science, without the background or the "work." This isn't pseudoscience unless you're claiming some strong scientific underpinning when there is none. It sounds like you're casually throwing out ideas, but without the necessary background to make them very meaningful. If you present your ideas like "What if..." or "Has anyone considered...", that's not pseudoscience. Some (probably small) percentage of your ideas might possibly have some merit. I suggest you just start reading more books on science. There are so many good ones, and it's amazing what scientists are figuring out these days. That will definitely increase your percentage of good ideas.

[aurora]

Lots of examples of psuedoscience can be found via this site:


http://www.crank.net/

[Extropia DaSilva]

Ok, so the gripe that caught my attention was that the ES hypothesis lacks quantitive data and relies far too much on metaphore.

On one level, every scientific theory has to rely on metaphore to explain its basics to the lay audience, such as the rubber sheet analogy used to explain General Relativity. But one should be able to 'do deeper' and track down the papers that provide the quantitive data that underpins (and allows specific, rigerous testing of) the theory in question. I can easily find EU essays using analogies and metaphore, but I have really struggled to find papers that provide the essentials, such as the exact circuit diagram for the electric Sun, or the mathematics showing the validity of Thornhill's claim that electrons 'must have structure to provide its dipole magnetic field'.

What is even more damning, though, is that I have not seen any OTHER proponent of EU provide the goods, either . And, really, one cannot play poker if one is not holding any cards

[blueshift]

Well, yes, but this poet understands that numbers are important in description as well, for science.

And this poet understands that numbers and experiment do show up indirectly in free verse where listings are repeated ala Billy Collins until at some point a conjunction displays a turning of a view due, some metamorphasis, that the experimental result unveiled.

The important thing is that science must destroy the metaphor's illusion but usually replaces it with a better metaphor. I often describe how capacitve and inductive reactance differs from resistance with an automotive analogy. Reistance is like the mass of the car resisting acceleration and the application of brakes is like a potentiometer that just had the resistance increased to slow the car. The suspension system is like the reactance of capacitors and inductors in the circuit. They cushion the ride and do offer a form of resistance to motion that occurs out of phase with the braking system.

Pseudoscience only has the value in that it involves experiments with word exhanges and that it serves as a good communication skill builder for the scientists that are cross-examining pseudoscience. The moon hoax is something that brings out many things that are misinterpreted even by young physics students who can pick up homonyms and near rhyme phrases in their first encounter with the new vocabulary. Science developes a language but languages deteriorate with time as linguists point out. Prefixes and suffixes drop off and are replaced by newer and more convenient sounds. Meanings change as well. Shakespeare's English makes more sense to modern French speaking people than to modern day English speaking people.

[dgruss23]

The problem with any classification scheme is that there will always be borderline cases that could go either way. In the case of science vs. pseudoscience I think it is probably a waste of time and energy to debate the appropriate place for such borderline cases. It's better just to discuss the idea in the realm of scientific dialogue and if the idea is difficult to discuss in such terms then its proper place becomes self-evident.

[Humots]

Kepler held to views that each planet had a particular frequency and that their orbital arrangements could be described with Platonic solids circumscribed within each other.

Is that correct? My understanding is that Kepler thought that orbital arrangements could be so described (For example, the circular orbits of Earth and Mars fit inside and outside a tetrahedron respectively ) but then he did something scientific: he checked this idea against the accurate observational data compiled by Tycho Brahe and could not make it work.

Then he did something else scientific: he asked himself, what does fit the observations, whether I like it or not?

And he came up with the planets moving about the sun in ellipses, according to what are still known as Kepler's Laws.

So Kepler held to the Platonic Solid idea only until he tested it and found it wanting.

I'm not familiar with any frequency notion on Kepler's part. I know there was some notion in his time about the "music of the spheres" and that Kepler was an astrologer. But he wasn't just an astrologer.

[blueshift]

Is that correct? My understanding is that Kepler thought that orbital arrangements could be so described (For example, the circular orbits of Earth and Mars fit inside and outside a tetrahedron respectively ) but then he did something scientific: he checked this idea against the accurate observational data compiled by Tycho Brahe and could not make it work.

Then he did something else scientific: he asked himself, what does fit the observations, whether I like it or not?

And he came up with the planets moving about the sun in ellipses, according to what are still known as Kepler's Laws.

So Kepler held to the Platonic Solid idea only until he tested it and found it wanting.

I'm not familiar with any frequency notion on Kepler's part. I know there was some notion in his time about the "music of the spheres" and that Kepler was an astrologer. But he wasn't just an astrologer.

You are right on the head in many areas here. Kepler was quite religious but his view on religion was that scripture was something to be distrusted since it was made by quarreling, imperfect humans. But who made the trees and the stars? To Kepler it was superior beings that did and he felt the act of experimentation, not reading scripture, was the way we get in touch with superior beings. The results of each experiment, in Kepler's mind, was god quietly answering the scientist. So when experiment disagreed with scripture, Kepler would side with experiment.

He was hired as an astrologer by the emporer and only took the job because he needed the money. He thought that astrology was for fatheads who had no concept of anything. So when it was convenient (a teaching position opened up in Straz as I recall) he deliberately tried to get fired by making an outlandish prediction. He predicted that the Danube would come up over the bank in the spring and that there would be a Turkish invasion.

Both came true and Rudolf hailed Kepler a genius and made him make up a set of tables..From there my memory gets a little fuzzy on the subject. I'll have to reread my sources.

[swansont]

My knee jerk definition is:

Science asks: How do I see if that really works the way I think it does?
Pseudoscience asks: How to I prove that works the way I think it does?

Then both set off to begin. If you start with the conclusion, it's not science.

Along these lines, pseudoscience tends to interpret ambiguous or insufficient data as confirmation of the hypothesis, while science simply admits that there is not enough data to draw a conclusion.

[blueshift]

Pseudoscience tries to make the world fit to certain ideas. Science tries to find out which ideas fit in the world.

[Thanatos]

The greek to english translation of 'psuedo' is false, counterfeit, deceptive imitation, etc. The term 'pseudoscience' is oxymoronic. Most people associate it with logical fallacies - especially assumptions of facts not in evidence.

[beady]

"Psuedoscience" ignores the rules of scientific inquiry, such as not accounting for all the evidence, ignoring unfavorable results, not eliminating bias, etc.

[Gillianren]

The greek to english translation of 'psuedo' is false, counterfeit, deceptive imitation, etc. The term 'pseudoscience' is oxymoronic. Most people associate it with logical fallacies - especially assumptions of facts not in evidence.

No, I really don't think it is oxymoronic, actually. "Fake science" is a perfectly legitimate, non-oxymoronic phrase.

[Thanatos]

Paradox Lost?

[swansont]

Paradox Lost?

Milton, describing a problem Noah had?