I guess I'll start this thing. What I believe differentiates science and pseudo science is that pseudo science has yet to properly back up its own claims. It isn't logical to believe weird claims such as crystals have healing powers if they have no proof to back it up. If there are such practices that seem to work but lack the empirical proof to back it up, they should attempt to prove what they are doing is a real science. If they won't, it will stay as pseudo science.
No problem. Well let's look at a few psuedo sciences. I myself hear people say that acupuncture works. Now two things are possible. Either that acupuncture is real, or it creates a placebo effect to most. If the former, it can be proven empirically and it can become quite noteworthy. Proving that it is a real science is beneficial to those who conduct it. The same thing with creationism. It would gain many followers if it was proven to be true. So why don't they? Is it because of laziness, the inability to verify it? Or maybe it is simply a fake science.
Psuedo scientist challenge what scientist can't prove. Although some things are relatively nonfactual to every extent and just ridiculous, there are instances where things happen and we can't really explain them. For instance, miracles or blessings, and even supernatural things that monks or Buddhist have been documented of doing. Like that guy that you( Mr. Harris) talk about, the one that was given Lye to drink but the other guy died from poisoning, you know the guy Mr. Harris, chip in on that part please sir. We live in a complex world and somethings I believe are always going to be over our heads. Even when we feel as if we might know something, there may be more out there that we may never discover or understand.
My good sir, you are just as human as I am, therefore, who are you to suggest that your way of thinking is greater than mine? I never suggested that I am happy with ignorance, only that there are GREATER things above us that I don't believe we will ever fully understand. I forgot you were renown and being paid for your opinions.
Here's a link to a website I'm fond of: www.psychic-experiences.com There's a lot to read on this website and who knows..yo might discover something about yourself in the process.
Also..I think that there are some things in the pseudo-science category that I do believe, such as psychics or mystical properties of certain objects (stones, etc). However, for these particular things I feel there was some evidence that connected to the claim they were making.
From what we studied today in class, I know we can prove science as right or wrong but with pseudo science we can't test it. For example, Science is when you are conducting an experiment to find out whether the hypothesis: 'depth of water affects the amount of pollutants in the water' is right or wrong, but in the case of Pseudo science, when you ask whether a prediction from an astrologer is right or wrong, the answer will be 50:50. It can either be right or wrong. I personally believe in Pseudo science like Astrology, Numerology and etc, because of my religion and culture.
I am a firm believer in the scientific method but I also do believe that Pseudo science is legitimate. Even though we as humans can not scientifically prove something is true does not mean that it is necessarily false information. I've often heard as human we only use 10% of our brains so just imagine that capabilities that someone could have if they used more than this percentage! Sometimes I think that humans aren't knowledgable enough to prove why certain things happen or why certain people have a knack for particular things and I believe that this is what often happens with pseudo science. Personally, I do believe pseudo science such as astrology does correlate well with the lives of individuals even though it can not be scientifically proven. Someday I hope to the read the Autobiography of a Yogi and have a better understanding of pseudo science from a spiritual standpoint.
Here's the thing I was talking about. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSQeqk5YzbM The full exorcism is broken up into several parts in this video., you should be able to find the full things on youtube though.
We have to take into account all things that are considered science before we move forward. Psychology for example. A common pattern in psychology is that the crazy or insane will not admit that they are crazy or insane. OK, how do we prove that? lie detectors? No. Lie detectors measure vital signs and stress. If a man sees an attractive woman and gets nervous, the lie detector will measure the signals and give the same readings as if he was lying. Police officers use this as a strategy to arrest and convict people. You can't simply take it on faith, psychopaths and sociopaths are known for being able to act extremely well and can lie very well. You could say that maybe you measure activity in the brain but not all insane or crazy people have abnormalities in the brain. In fact, not being abnormal by any medical diagnosis and still being considered crazy is the definition of a sociopath. Also, not all psychologists use machines. A good number simply use common phrases and questions to talk to and diagnose patients. Yet psychology is still a legitimate science. Even after considering all the variables or good liars, not measuring or not having an actual proof. Everything to do with psychology is in the mind and almost none of the behaviors we notice hold true in every case.
Also, witnesses. If 2 people claim to have seen a man commit a murder that is enough for the court to find him guilty. However, if we have a large group of honest monks who say they saw a man do things humans normally can't, we automatically label that as something we can not prove so we shouldn't believe it. Why?
Now some pseudo sciences are extremely vague and seem almost impossible to believe because they provide evidence of nothing. But we still have a double standard and accept a lot of legitimate sciences even when they have no proof. We take a lot of science on faith and we don't question it because its socially accepted that science is right. "2. Higgs Boson. The Standard Model includes the Higgs boson, and we think it's true but so-far have little evidence for it.3. Supersymmetry. Most modern theories of particle physics suggest that our 'everyday' particles have supersymmetric partners. We've yet to prove this, although we think it's true.4. Extra dimensions. Modern particle theories like string theory include multiple dimensions. Again, we currently have no evidence these exist.5. Dark matter. Dark matter is a 'solution' to a problem based on observations of galaxies (there isn't enough glowing stuff to account for their rotation rates). This may be true, but we don't know yet and other theories exist that could also explain the observations (such as modifying gravity at long ranges)." There are a number of theories with no evidence even though science says that a theory must have some evidence or experiments to be considered a legitimate theory.
Also we should note that not all claims by pseudo science are untrue. If you have OCD and you change the Feng shui of your house by moving objects close to the walls and keeping everything tightly packed, and it makes you feel better like Feng shui claims it will, how can we argue that? Sure we can't measure how rearranging objects will make your life better but if the claim is simply to grant you happiness and your OCD no longer acts up because everything is in its proper place then technically Feng shui worked. You can argue that OCD is a mental condition and we can just monitor that....except we went over psychology, what if someone is faking OCD? Actually, what if their faking happiness?
This ultimately comes down to whether or not it works for specific people. A person has their own beliefs and whether its a placebo effector or actual science, if it works we can't exactly argue with the results
From what I've read from other comments, a lot of people say that they see certain objects and other various things as ways to prove the pseudo sciences. I believe that these different ideas are mostly based on your own view of the universe. Certain things may work for you and certain things may not appeal to you. It all depends on your own beliefs. Those with stronger beliefs and faith in their beliefs usually see some type of result from their experience.
From what i read i can see why Amani can say it is illogical to believe in some Pseudo science. but from my view i see that many things that we know that is science today, had to be theorize at a previous time. Therefore it was at some point Pseduo science. you can call people ignorant for a belief in certain claims.
Pseudo science correlates to religion, since religion contradicts what society believes as factually true, pseudo science is not fully accepted, therefore it is not capable of being tested.
I guess I'll start this thing. What I believe differentiates science and pseudo science is that pseudo science has yet to properly back up its own claims. It isn't logical to believe weird claims such as crystals have healing powers if they have no proof to back it up. If there are such practices that seem to work but lack the empirical proof to back it up, they should attempt to prove what they are doing is a real science. If they won't, it will stay as pseudo science.
ReplyDeleteThanks Amani! Can you give an example? (oh, and thanks for being first to post!)
ReplyDeleteNo problem. Well let's look at a few psuedo sciences. I myself hear people say that acupuncture works. Now two things are possible. Either that acupuncture is real, or it creates a placebo effect to most. If the former, it can be proven empirically and it can become quite noteworthy. Proving that it is a real science is beneficial to those who conduct it. The same thing with creationism. It would gain many followers if it was proven to be true. So why don't they? Is it because of laziness, the inability to verify it? Or maybe it is simply a fake science.
ReplyDeletePsuedo scientist challenge what scientist can't prove. Although some things are relatively nonfactual to every extent and just ridiculous, there are instances where things happen and we can't really explain them. For instance, miracles or blessings, and even supernatural things that monks or Buddhist have been documented of doing. Like that guy that you( Mr. Harris) talk about, the one that was given Lye to drink but the other guy died from poisoning, you know the guy Mr. Harris, chip in on that part please sir. We live in a complex world and somethings I believe are always going to be over our heads. Even when we feel as if we might know something, there may be more out there that we may never discover or understand.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteMy good sir, you are just as human as I am, therefore, who are you to suggest that your way of thinking is greater than mine? I never suggested that I am happy with ignorance, only that there are GREATER things above us that I don't believe we will ever fully understand. I forgot you were renown and being paid for your opinions.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteMarvin, you can find the story here: http://www.crystalclarity.com/yogananda/chap31.php
ReplyDeleteHere's a link to a website I'm fond of: www.psychic-experiences.com
ReplyDeleteThere's a lot to read on this website and who knows..yo might discover something about yourself in the process.
Also..I think that there are some things in the pseudo-science category that I do believe, such as psychics or mystical properties of certain objects (stones, etc). However, for these particular things I feel there was some evidence that connected to the claim they were making.
ReplyDeleteFrom what we studied today in class, I know we can prove science as right or wrong but with pseudo science we can't test it. For example, Science is when you are conducting an experiment to find out whether the hypothesis: 'depth of water affects the amount of pollutants in the water' is right or wrong, but in the case of Pseudo science, when you ask whether a prediction from an astrologer is right or wrong, the answer will be 50:50. It can either be right or wrong. I personally believe in Pseudo science like Astrology, Numerology and etc, because of my religion and culture.
ReplyDeleteI am a firm believer in the scientific method but I also do believe that Pseudo science is legitimate. Even though we as humans can not scientifically prove something is true does not mean that it is necessarily false information. I've often heard as human we only use 10% of our brains so just imagine that capabilities that someone could have if they used more than this percentage! Sometimes I think that humans aren't knowledgable enough to prove why certain things happen or why certain people have a knack for particular things and I believe that this is what often happens with pseudo science. Personally, I do believe pseudo science such as astrology does correlate well with the lives of individuals even though it can not be scientifically proven. Someday I hope to the read the Autobiography of a Yogi and have a better understanding of pseudo science from a spiritual standpoint.
Delete-- Saidah R. Wright
Here's the thing I was talking about. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSQeqk5YzbM
ReplyDeleteThe full exorcism is broken up into several parts in this video., you should be able to find the full things on youtube though.
Here's the start of the series http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4PVFsDaH50&feature=relmfu
ReplyDeleteWe have to take into account all things that are considered science before we move forward. Psychology for example. A common pattern in psychology is that the crazy or insane will not admit that they are crazy or insane. OK, how do we prove that? lie detectors? No. Lie detectors measure vital signs and stress. If a man sees an attractive woman and gets nervous, the lie detector will measure the signals and give the same readings as if he was lying. Police officers use this as a strategy to arrest and convict people. You can't simply take it on faith, psychopaths and sociopaths are known for being able to act extremely well and can lie very well. You could say that maybe you measure activity in the brain but not all insane or crazy people have abnormalities in the brain. In fact, not being abnormal by any medical diagnosis and still being considered crazy is the definition of a sociopath. Also, not all psychologists use machines. A good number simply use common phrases and questions to talk to and diagnose patients. Yet psychology is still a legitimate science. Even after considering all the variables or good liars, not measuring or not having an actual proof. Everything to do with psychology is in the mind and almost none of the behaviors we notice hold true in every case.
ReplyDeleteAlso, witnesses. If 2 people claim to have seen a man commit a murder that is enough for the court to find him guilty. However, if we have a large group of honest monks who say they saw a man do things humans normally can't, we automatically label that as something we can not prove so we shouldn't believe it. Why?
Now some pseudo sciences are extremely vague and seem almost impossible to believe because they provide evidence of nothing. But we still have a double standard and accept a lot of legitimate sciences even when they have no proof. We take a lot of science on faith and we don't question it because its socially accepted that science is right. "2. Higgs Boson. The Standard Model includes the Higgs boson, and we think it's true but so-far have little evidence for it.3. Supersymmetry. Most modern theories of particle physics suggest that our 'everyday' particles have supersymmetric partners. We've yet to prove this, although we think it's true.4. Extra dimensions. Modern particle theories like string theory include multiple dimensions. Again, we currently have no evidence these exist.5. Dark matter. Dark matter is a 'solution' to a problem based on observations of galaxies (there isn't enough glowing stuff to account for their rotation rates). This may be true, but we don't know yet and other theories exist that could also explain the observations (such as modifying gravity at long ranges)." There are a number of theories with no evidence even though science says that a theory must have some evidence or experiments to be considered a legitimate theory.
Also we should note that not all claims by pseudo science are untrue. If you have OCD and you change the Feng shui of your house by moving objects close to the walls and keeping everything tightly packed, and it makes you feel better like Feng shui claims it will, how can we argue that? Sure we can't measure how rearranging objects will make your life better but if the claim is simply to grant you happiness and your OCD no longer acts up because everything is in its proper place then technically Feng shui worked. You can argue that OCD is a mental condition and we can just monitor that....except we went over psychology, what if someone is faking OCD? Actually, what if their faking happiness?
This ultimately comes down to whether or not it works for specific people. A person has their own beliefs and whether its a placebo effector or actual science, if it works we can't exactly argue with the results
From what I've read from other comments, a lot of people say that they see certain objects and other various things as ways to prove the pseudo sciences. I believe that these different ideas are mostly based on your own view of the universe. Certain things may work for you and certain things may not appeal to you. It all depends on your own beliefs. Those with stronger beliefs and faith in their beliefs usually see some type of result from their experience.
ReplyDeleteFrom what i read i can see why Amani can say it is illogical to believe in some Pseudo science. but from my view i see that many things that we know that is science today, had to be theorize at a previous time. Therefore it was at some point Pseduo science. you can call people ignorant for a belief in certain claims.
ReplyDeletePseudo science correlates to religion, since religion contradicts what society believes as factually true, pseudo science is not fully accepted, therefore it is not capable of being tested.
ReplyDelete