4 ms·

> They don't know the effects yet. That's what makes it 'pseudo'.

Karunamon 10y ago
So by that definition, any new and untested-en-masse "thing" is "pseudoscience", with all the implied quackery baggage that term applies. That is not a useful definition.
- ricksplat 10y ago
  It's pseudoscience if it's presented as "scientific fact"; science is the process by which such facts are established. Otherwise you're talking about a hypothesis.
  - Karunamon 10y ago
    http://jjodx.weebly.com/home/seven-papers-about-tdcs http://jjodx.weebly.com/home/seven-papers-about-tdcs Sounds like scientific fact to me. We know it works, it's just a matter of establishing effects on specific tasks.
    - ricksplat 10y ago
      Sigh did you read TFA? It's not "just" a matter of establishing effects - article goes into why it's not that straightforward ... as another commenter said TDCS is like using a sledge-hammer to tune a piano. We know that TDCS does "something" but all the hypotheses are "two tailed" which basically means all you can say is there is an effect - not whether it's a good one or bad one. The pseudoscience is claiming these hypotheses are certain.
    - scott_s 10y ago
      I suggest reading the submitted article, starting from the heading "What are your other concerns?"
- khedoros 10y ago
  The article was about people using tdcs for durations and at levels of current that haven't been tested, measured, and documented, and then claiming that it has a known, beneficial effect, while implying that there are no negative side-effects. When scientists study these effects, they study them over groups of people. For some individuals, it hurts where it should help. For others, they get a larger-than-average boost. At the same time, research seems to suggest that some abilities are increased while others decrease, for a given protocol. It's not pseudoscience that a lot of people are trying a new, untested thing. It's pseudoscience if they claim benefits based on subjective perception or claim that the same protocol will help everyone, without documenting objective, replicable proof.
- st3v3r 10y ago
  It is a quite useful definition. Until it's proven, someone claiming that it's great is spewing quackery.
kazinator 10y ago
Not only that but the fact that by the method they are following, they will never know what the effects are. That's really what makes it pseudo-science. They have an apparatus, but nothing else of the scientific method. The results of a trial are judged in some purely subjective terms.

So by that definition, any new and untested-en-masse "thing" is "pseudoscience", with all the implied quackery baggage that term applies. That is not a useful definition.

ricksplat 10y ago
It's pseudoscience if it's presented as "scientific fact"; science is the process by which such facts are established. Otherwise you're talking about a hypothesis.
- Karunamon 10y ago
  http://jjodx.weebly.com/home/seven-papers-about-tdcs http://jjodx.weebly.com/home/seven-papers-about-tdcs Sounds like scientific fact to me. We know it works, it's just a matter of establishing effects on specific tasks.
  - ricksplat 10y ago
    Sigh did you read TFA? It's not "just" a matter of establishing effects - article goes into why it's not that straightforward ... as another commenter said TDCS is like using a sledge-hammer to tune a piano. We know that TDCS does "something" but all the hypotheses are "two tailed" which basically means all you can say is there is an effect - not whether it's a good one or bad one. The pseudoscience is claiming these hypotheses are certain.
  - scott_s 10y ago
    I suggest reading the submitted article, starting from the heading "What are your other concerns?"
khedoros 10y ago
The article was about people using tdcs for durations and at levels of current that haven't been tested, measured, and documented, and then claiming that it has a known, beneficial effect, while implying that there are no negative side-effects. When scientists study these effects, they study them over groups of people. For some individuals, it hurts where it should help. For others, they get a larger-than-average boost. At the same time, research seems to suggest that some abilities are increased while others decrease, for a given protocol. It's not pseudoscience that a lot of people are trying a new, untested thing. It's pseudoscience if they claim benefits based on subjective perception or claim that the same protocol will help everyone, without documenting objective, replicable proof.
st3v3r 10y ago
It is a quite useful definition. Until it's proven, someone claiming that it's great is spewing quackery.

kazinator 10y ago

Not only that but the fact that by the method they are following, they will never know what the effects are. That's really what makes it pseudo-science. They have an apparatus, but nothing else of the scientific method. The results of a trial are judged in some purely subjective terms.