4 ms·
I 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, astrolo
by roundsquare 17y ago
I 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.