3 ms·
In fact the mere problem of discerning pseudo-science from science is almost impossible by an fixed criteria.
by dantheman 17y ago
In fact the mere problem of discerning pseudo-science from science is almost impossible by an fixed criteria.
- kurtosis 17y agoNot sure what you mean by fixed-criterion How about about just demanding falsifiable predictions, and doing experiments to test them?
- dantheman 17y agoMost people think astrology is bunk science, but they can make predictions and do experiments. Throughout history physics has had experiments whose results were incompatible with current models, which eventually lead to new theories (relativity, etc) but how do you know when contradicting information disproves your theory or will expand it.
- roundsquare 17y agoI think we have an issue of defining pseudo-science here. Definition 1: A field that can't be can't make falsifiable predeictions. By this definitino, astrology is certainly a real science. Definition 2: A field that makes false predictions. By this definition, most peoplle thing astrology is a pseudo-science.
- dantheman 17y agoDefinition 2 is a flawed definition, perhaps some parts of astrology are wrong, but some parts of physics are wrong, we just need more time to work out the bugs in astrology -- more experiments need to be made. If you're interested in this problem, this is a great reference: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pseudo-science/ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pseudo-science/
- khafra 17y agoI think when your model consistently gives results indiscernable from random noise in its strongest application (cf. blog.okcupid.com), you can safely conclude that it's of no more value than a model selected at random from all possible models of similar complexity.