3 ms·
Isn't all science "pseudo-science type reasoning" before someone goes out and proves/disproves it? I don't see a problem with some curious conversation.
by ngngngng 6y ago
Isn't all science "pseudo-science type reasoning" before someone goes out and proves/disproves it? I don't see a problem with some curious conversation.
- tkzed49 6y agothere's nothing wrong with sharing anecdotes, but it's not science until someone actually does the "proving/disproving" in a convincing way.
- surfsvammel 6y agoWell, it might be wrong to share anecdotes, IMO. We should always be careful when communicating online as we don’t know who we might be communicating with. Someone might take those anecdotes as proof that something works, and might go out and do something that might not be safe.
- surfsvammel 6y agoNo. There is difference. Science works by making observations, making hypothesis and then testing those. The result is some kind of knowledge which is useful for making predictions. Reasoning in this world is based on that. We only make predictions when something is tested, established or pure fact. What I mean by pseudo-science type reasoning is; not based on any fact, nor any position which has been tested (scientifically), nor any established knowledge. Instead it is often based on anecdotes or the reason is motivated or heavily biased. Frankly, I don’t care too much about bad reasoning. But when there is risk that it might be understood as recommendations, and it might be unsafe for someone reading it, then I think it’s dangerous.