4 ms·

>A scientist generally starts with the conservative working assumption that proposed new ideas are not true or that hypothetical new entities do not exist, and

>A scientist generally starts with the conservative working assumption that proposed new ideas are not true or that hypothetical new entities do not exist, and then revises her probability estimate upwards only when the evidence forces her to do so. A pseudoscientist typically starts with the assumption that a novel proposal seems to be true, and then revises her probability downward as the evidence leaves her no choice—if she is willing to surrender the possibility to any degree at all. That sounds more like a verificationist idea of science than a Popperian falsification process. Is verificationism coming back in vogue in the sciences? Wouldn't it be a much better criticism to say that the cryptozoologists are not scientific because they do not make falsifiable predictions?

api 13y ago
Ahh philosophy... But if cryptozoologists are unscientific by the Popperian criteria then so is SETI.
- lutusp 13y ago
  > But if cryptozoologists are unscientific by the Popperian criteria then so is SETI. Not at all. Cryptozoologists assume their subject exists, SETI researchers assume it doesn't. Surely you don't think SETI people assume a priori that they will hear a transmission from an intelligent alien species? Or that they have heard such a thing? There's a single report of an anomalous reception, now called the "Wow" signal, that no serious SETI person thinks represents an alien broadcast. By contrast, there are any number of books and articles by cryptozoologists that analyze, but don't doubt, the many reports of Bigfoot, Yeti, Nessie, etc. sightings. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wow!_signal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wow!_signal Quote: "Ehman has voiced doubts that the signal was of intelligent extraterrestrial origin: 'We should have seen it again when we looked for it 50 times. Something suggests it was an Earth-sourced signal that simply got reflected off a piece of space debris.'" Spoken like a true scientist.
lutusp 13y ago
> That sounds more like a verificationist idea of science than a Popperian falsification process. Actually, it's an informal statement of the null hypothesis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis In the null hypothesis, supposedly the basis for all experimental science, you start with the assumption that there is no effect, and let the evidence force you to a different conclusion. In other words, you assume nothing out of the ordinary and take no position on the subject of study. > Wouldn't it be a much better criticism to say that the cryptozoologists are not scientific because they do not make falsifiable predictions? Yes, it would, but that's not a very popular definition of science these days. If it were, psychiatrists and psychologists would be immediately excluded -- they make plenty of predictions, but the predictions don't work out.
- jlgreco 13y ago
  "Yes, it would, but that's not a very popular definition of science these days. If it were, psychiatrists and psychologists would be immediately excluded -- they make plenty of predictions, but the predictions don't work out." It is a popular definition of science in some circles for exactly that reason. Psychoanalysis in particular is heavily criticized for this.

api 13y ago

Ahh philosophy... But if cryptozoologists are unscientific by the Popperian criteria then so is SETI.

lutusp 13y ago
> But if cryptozoologists are unscientific by the Popperian criteria then so is SETI. Not at all. Cryptozoologists assume their subject exists, SETI researchers assume it doesn't. Surely you don't think SETI people assume a priori that they will hear a transmission from an intelligent alien species? Or that they have heard such a thing? There's a single report of an anomalous reception, now called the "Wow" signal, that no serious SETI person thinks represents an alien broadcast. By contrast, there are any number of books and articles by cryptozoologists that analyze, but don't doubt, the many reports of Bigfoot, Yeti, Nessie, etc. sightings. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wow!_signal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wow!_signal Quote: "Ehman has voiced doubts that the signal was of intelligent extraterrestrial origin: 'We should have seen it again when we looked for it 50 times. Something suggests it was an Earth-sourced signal that simply got reflected off a piece of space debris.'" Spoken like a true scientist.

lutusp 13y ago

> That sounds more like a verificationist idea of science than a Popperian falsification process. Actually, it's an informal statement of the null hypothesis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis In the null hypothesis, supposedly the basis for all experimental science, you start with the assumption that there is no effect, and let the evidence force you to a different conclusion. In other words, you assume nothing out of the ordinary and take no position on the subject of study. > Wouldn't it be a much better criticism to say that the cryptozoologists are not scientific because they do not make falsifiable predictions? Yes, it would, but that's not a very popular definition of science these days. If it were, psychiatrists and psychologists would be immediately excluded -- they make plenty of predictions, but the predictions don't work out.

jlgreco 13y ago
"Yes, it would, but that's not a very popular definition of science these days. If it were, psychiatrists and psychologists would be immediately excluded -- they make plenty of predictions, but the predictions don't work out." It is a popular definition of science in some circles for exactly that reason. Psychoanalysis in particular is heavily criticized for this.