Garman
115066
2257
55
Jun 22, 2018 11:04 AM
Garman
115066
2257
55
AdmJota
But remember: if something doesn't claim to be science in the first place, it's not pseudoscience. It's just not science.
ILoveToLaughHaHaHaHa
So,....the column on the right describes the extremist organized religion leaders out there?
feralurges
> Knows the world is round | > Claims the world is flat
BanananaNotToScale
It saddens me that people often don’t know the difference.
ArmedandOverclocked
To be clear there is a difference between how Science is supposed to be conducted and how Scientist actually conduct themselves.
rxl8
Skeptics guide is a podcast available on Spotify if anyone interested. Sometimes cheesy but pretty entertaining
iamalreadyaghost
Temet Nosce
yourlifeisalye
If I have a theory/hypothesis/idea about something, I always try to prove myself wrong. Seems to workout fine so far lol
nitsujcm
Climate change has way to many points on the pseudo side. Bill Nye the calls you a denier guy.
robpaschal
Pseudoscience sounds a lot like marketing.
tankmayvin
Anyone who thinks scientists embrace criticism really doesn't know anything about the whole doing science thing.
mccar7hy
Nice thing about science is that you don't need to believe it for it to be true
Traja01
But the masses need to believe it to be true and not heresy or else they'll burn down that ivory tower.
Stupidperson810
The sceptics guide to the universe is the best podcast in the world.
DavidBrooker
Pseudoscience: hostile to criticism. Science: passive-aggressive to criticism (this is one of the most entertaining parts of conferences)
airbreather
The fact that so few people get this is literally why I quit my career and became a science teacher.
theobstruction
Tbf, science starts with a hypothesis, but if the evidence doesn't lead there, the conclusion changes.
eratosthenesearth
A testable hypothesis which is then tested experimentally. Other hypotheses are then advanced and tested.
idontevenlookatusernames
As a scientist: most science today would classify as pseudoscience by these definitions. Doing actual, unbiased science gets no funding
metaphordog
As another scientist: You are confusing doing science with doing what gets funded.
Xpaqui2
This is a load of junk. Embraces criticism, if you've never read any history on science.
MyLabrum
If the sun is hot, why is space cold? Checkmate, dweebs
Blake242
because heat is an effect of energetic matter and space is a vacuum
Garman
Laws of thermodynamics and entropy?
MyLabrum
Psshh, more like Nazi moon base
oblimo
Left out a vital item - real science is FALSIFIABLE. That is, a scientific theory can be proven wrong with the right evidence 1/2
oblimo
Pseudoscience takes any negative evidence and explains it away. If there’s no clear way to prove a theory wrong, it’s not scientific. 2/2
RedDwarfIV
For an example of this, the other day I talked with a protestor who was holding an 'evolution is a hoax' sign. I asked him why evolution...
RedDwarfIV
... needs more evidence than the existence of God does. He said that the proof is that you know God exists. I said what if I don't...
RedDwarfIV
... to which he replied "then you are suppressing it". He didn't prove I felt that way. He asserted it.
Foxflarez
Hate how everyone with their black belt in google fu will site bs "facts" starting with "A study was done by,..etc" bad science doesnt= fact
MultiplePersonalitiesProfile
Not even the academy is always completely true to this, let alone the average joe.
MultiplePersonalitiesProfile
I’m not even talking about “gender studies” level of “science”. I’m more thinking about trying to publish papers that, although 1/
MultiplePersonalitiesProfile
scientifically sound, contain results that disagree with current scientific consensus, let alone political consensus... 2/2
Traja01
It's because it goes against all our basic animal psychology. It requires active, deliberate effort and self-control, which is very hard.
thankgodfordeaddinosaurs
I'm just gonna leave this here: opposing positions on climate change. Discuss at your leisure.
dannomite82
Environmentalism in general, mainly because it gets political, and it's easier to feed people absolute predictions than fluid theories.
RedDwarfIV
The way to stop ACC would be to switch over to nuclear power. Renewables don't come close, and we aren't going to stop being an industrial
RedDwarfIV
... civilisation just because some people think the world will end. We could also fix it by supporting cheap space access, which would
RedDwarfIV
... allow us to build a solar shade, after which we could make the global temperature whatever we wanted. That's _my_ opinion...
RedDwarfIV
... but what I've seen of avid ACC supporters is that they are rabidly anti-nuclear, and are the people you see on every youtube video...
RedDwarfIV
... about space travel saying "we should be focusing on Earth's problems, not spreading our problems to other planets".
SomeRandomDudeWhoUpvotesThingsHeLikes
I think the middle ground that most people are taught doesn't exist, is that yes, there is climate change, but it's not as big a deal (1/2)
SomeRandomDudeWhoUpvotesThingsHeLikes
as some people make it out to be. A few decades the same people were screaming about the impending ice age. The cycle continues. (2/2)
csullivan
SomeRandomDudeWhoUpvotesThingsHeLikes
Pseudoscience? Oh you mean like LGBTQ and gender fluidity? I know you're not allowed to criticize the ideology nowadays, but that's my point
TGWeaver
You think being gay is an ideology? You think lesbians are "pseudoscience"? You're dismissing whole fields, and you think THEY'RE dogmatic?
Doumdidoum
Hmmm, Genetics and Biology have bad news for your view point.
abacab87
So what does science say about it?
WithPride
That there isn't enough proof to be able to back up their claims? Especially their numbers.
TGWeaver
Well, the science agrees that sex and gender are different things. And being transgender was recently declared not a mental illness.
TGWeaver
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/06/20/transgender-not-mental-illness-world-health-organization/717758002/
WithPride
That was more for social issues and not the discovery of anything new
TGWeaver
That's nothing to do with what I'm saying. Science still backs more than one gender and does not condemn transgender people.
WhoReadsPeoplesUsernamesAnyway
More people need to really get this. Not just with big conspiracy theories. You need to make this distinction all the time in everyday life.
blcoyote
Mot people won't understand half of the words on that thing
wompwompwomp
I was actually thinking I should save this to evaluate beauty articles. There’s a crazy amount of false skin care info around especially.
Zyrixion
Pretty much 95% of all ads is psychological warfare in getting people to buy useless shit they don't need or sometimes even want.
tarkus10
People have to want to get smarter, instead of dumber, and we don't seem to have a lot of that going around. Dumb is on sale, though...
Falkh12
Dumb is not on sale, dumb is for free. you have to pay for smart, either in money or in time. and the yield is not always obvious
zoezoebelle
So many "science" journals and blogs write unsubstantiated opinion pieces that take actual studies out of context or don't even cite sources
zoezoebelle
Ex. "I Fucking Love Science", the Facebook page that should have stuck to posting memes instead of reblogging baseless opinions.
braaaiiiiinnnnsss
Everyday life huh? Ok, let try! Why does the pseudo-science category perfectly describe Trump?
AxelBeingCivil
Largely because the overlap between pseudoscience and cults of personality is non-zero; they both build on false promises of unifying truth.
Scarsn
That's a far better answer than I expected to see here. Have an upvote.
ILogInToUpvote
We -need- to? That sounds like a pseudoscientific claim to me.
ICheckSpellingAndSuch
Then there's also the distinction between science and opinion. Not all opinions are (pseudo)science-based, nor do they need to be.
WhoReadsPeoplesUsernamesAnyway
Of course and alot of people make alot of sense. My point was just also to go through the right check list when you hear something fishy
Lostchild12
I have a bridge in Brooklyn that I would like to sell you. My Nigerian cousin is a prince and needs some help. Pays well.
xKittyPrincess
Sell your bridge to the nigerian cousin and push him off of it. Works for either of you
Legdig
Never work backwards from the outcome, thats how you get communism.
kgburden
It's also how you get cheap chinese iPhone knock-offs.
DVSBSTrD
No it isn't.
spacewarp
Icantthinkofaname2
And every other ism, including capitalism.
Legdig
Even with corporations its still less abusive than communism.
furiouspatula
Ehhhh, it's actually kinda the exact same thing. Communism becomes facism, and Capitalism becomes oligarchy, but the abuses people face?
furiouspatula
You'll find very little difference in poor communities here than poor communities in Russia.
Jazzmastalucio
+1 for a refreshing bit of nuance
erischilde
That's a strong, pseudo-scientific statement. "abusive" needs to be defined. This comment exemplifies what OP is talking about.
Svartlebee
Tell that to the Baron Age.
Legdig
You're right, slightly less than mass genocide is better than mass genocide somehow, I can't believe I didn't see it sooner.
Legdig
And nevermind the fact that we have enough income left after work to use for taxes for a true welfare state that actually works.
cjpoet
Science: repeatable or dumped. Pseudo: "It won't work if non-believers are present."
OliverClothesoff70
This is a great video of a karate guy scamming people with his "Chi" whammy https://youtu.be/_Z0_n7tGnK0 (go to 3:00 or so) BUSTED!
CapitalNick
Well, I mean, not every heart transplant is a success.
khora
Just mess with the definitions. If it wasn’t a success, was it really a transplant?
EggFooYung
That's like 50% of the reason I'm an atheist. God does not produce repeatable results.
reykjavikparadise
Like how that pro-diseaser group funded a study to prove once and for all the link of vaccine and autism and they study showed nothing
Dangermouse5
And carbon 14 dating never works when the age is known.
Dagordae
And then they threw a fit because their researchers didn’t kill enough monkeys. Due to a complete lack of a reason to kill the monkeys.
BlameBilly
it saddens me as well how much genuine research gets distorted by the media. i read an article about FTL, claiming that we invented 1/2
BlameBilly
a drive capable of carrying a human to mars kn under a day, click on source study, says that the have been able to 2/3
BlameBilly
create an engine that produces 0.003 newtons of thrust, but without exhaust. impressive, but not ftl
DavidBrooker
I do not believe that the engine without reaction mass functions whatsoever.
Hutchy01
Except in computer science, then it's 40% magic based on the audience.
Abracanawbra
You cannot design away the user.
MylastaccountgotbandbecauseIpostednakedwomen
75% of the time.
OtterlyMagnificent
With 90% of the viewing morons being the cause of it not working.
ificouldwritesomethingcleveriwould
The first point is not entirely correct. Science also starts with a theory/hypothesis. The main difference is that in science you (1/2)
LaughingSeraphim
As a scientist, this is bullshit. That hypothesis is formed AFTER consideration of available evidence and observations. It is never -
LaughingSeraphim
"from nothing".
uzerok
Not quite. There's a field of science that deals with hypotheses. But then there's other fields where just some process is observed and 1
uzerok
can use those laws to make predictions. But the laws do not even attempt to explain where those forces come from and so forth. end
uzerok
then formalized the observations using mathematics, not explaining the 'how'. The latter leads to "laws" the former leads to "theories" 2.
uzerok
You can use Newton's laws of motion as an example. They describe the relationship between time, distance, velocity and acceleration. You 3
ificouldwritesomethingcleveriwould
Constantly try to disprove the theory in order to prove it. (2/2)
TheMightyKibbless
While I appreciate where you are coming from, a theory and a conclusion are not the same thing.
TheMightyKibbless
I'm upvoting you out of the 0 point range though, because you weren't being a dick about anything (picky people).
ificouldwritesomethingcleveriwould
yeah you’re right. Hypothesis-scientific method-come to a conclusion - form a theory. Basically every step to form the theory requires (1/2)
ificouldwritesomethingcleveriwould
Efforts to disprove it. And even though you use said theory later on, it doesn’t mean that there won’t be efforts to disprove in order (1/3)
ificouldwritesomethingcleveriwould
To come to a new conclusion. There are no definitive theories in science. (3/3)
attofreak
Interested to know how many here have PhDs? You'll be surprised how cliquish, sycophantic Scientists are, & beliefs triumphing over truth.
VioletMoonRising
Many people with a Dr. in front of their name seem to believe their title wins over fact. Medical Doctors are the worse with pseudoscience
overdrive55
I do. Many scientists are as you suggest. They don't follow evidence "wherever it leads", they don't embrace criticism, etc. My primary 1/2
overdrive55
disagreement with such people is their insistence on a conclusion, subsequent refusal to look, and santimonious belittling of 2/3
overdrive55
anyone that doesn't share their definition of reality. Neil deGrasse Tyson is a perfect example. I wish I could speak with him personally.
naikou
Yeah, even respectable, non-obvious-crackpot scientists have a lot of trouble with stuff in the left column. Reproducibility crisis and such
astrangehop
Just a dabbler, but when I learned how scientific journals work in all fields I kinda cried a little.
LindyShock
Depends of discipline but yeah for sure. I'm a PhD student of neuroscience, and there are definitely good and bad scientists
hyperchondriac
Same as an other field I suppose. Not too familiar on subject. Unless you feel like sharing a peer-reviewed article that states otherwise?
AllTheGoodOnesWereGone
Scientists are not "science", they're human practitioners subject to all human foibles. But the best aspire to live up to these principles.
PaintedSlate
Wait, are you saying that scientists are humans? Or are you saying that they are just as/more flawed in their reasoning?
RationalViking
I'll have a Masters degree in a bit, does that count? :p
attofreak
Almost there. Now for the final push into the abyss: apply for a PhD program >:)
RationalViking
Haha I think I need to work for a few years before I go back for that. But Im pretty sure Ill do that eventually
fixedpressman
Maintenance supervisor, at a chemical company. your statement is spot on
LordYathnon
A lot of scientists believe what they are paid to believe
AranaDiscoteca
The method is the grown-up version of tattling to a teacher that someone isn't doing what they're supposed, really. Supposed to break it up.
AranaDiscoteca
People are always going to be people, the question is how many defenses have we built and do we allow to stop that.
MetalPsychologist
PhD in business psychology. I find my colleagues to be skeptical, but not confrontational or cynical. Ultimately we seek truth/understanding
AxelBeingCivil
Workin' on my PhD right now. Can't say that's been my personal experience, but I hear plenty of horror stories.
squintish
Sometimes it takes a while but eventually science points towards truth.
AJFXW
I have a phd, and as much as I love the scientific method, I get annoyed with how slow-moving the people employing the method can be.
AxelBeingCivil
Sometimes, cultures gotta grow, man.
derpflanz
There is a distinct difference between science and scientists. Science isn't flawed, but many scientists are.
DavidBrooker
Science *is* flawed, and very narrow in scope. Science only claims to be cognizant of its worst flaws, not to be flawless.
Krafdorfmeister
lol, science change dramatically over short periods of time
DavidBrooker
Is this meant to be a counter-point?
Krafdorfmeister
my point is there are five properties of science;if you lost one of them then you're not talking about science.
equityforpunks
Science by its core definition is our best knowledge so far. It's sometimes wrong, but eventually it will fix itself. Unlike laymens "facts"
derpflanz
I see science not as knowledge but as a way to obtain knowledge.
equityforpunks
I have a PhD. I also know that a lot of research done and published cannot be called science. Research != science.
AxelBeingCivil
What's your field? You have me curious. Microbiology, myself.
equityforpunks
E.g. science allows us to put satellites on orbits. It's reliable and it can predict correctly. Research often just gives us "a good guess".
Krafdorfmeister
wrong, it's not the science allows us to put satellites on orbits but technology.
equityforpunks
And by all means 100% of the time the "good guess" of research is waaaaay better than guess of a layman or some book of religion.
BenjaminT247
next you’re going to tell me that grass is green.
nagao025772
Who needs a PhD when I can be a Jordan Peterson fan with a big brain who never researches anything himself and relies on Petersons evidence
aspoerl1
Is everything okay?
equityforpunks
No matter what you think of Peterson as a person, his scientific work and references hold up very well against critique. 1/2
equityforpunks
2/2 His facts are solid. But interpretations and conclusions of facts are always up for debate and critique in academic research.
AxelBeingCivil
Doesn't he compare human behaviour to lobsters? Creatures we're more distant from than we are trout? Or tunicates?
TresusIbor
Not 100% sure on details, but it has to do with a hierarchy based on position and power being a genetic trait and not some "patriarchy"
TresusIbor
Something having to do with serotonin regulation existing as far back as 300 million years with the lobsters. Google it for more info.