7 ms·
Definition 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
by dantheman 17y ago
Definition 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.