(Author Michael) Gordin provides neat, quick summaries of all these issues in his brief but thoughtful and enjoyable book. Most valuable of all is his first chapter, in which he demolishes the notion that philosopher Karl Popper’s “falsifiability” criterion allows a clear demarcation between science and non- (or pseudo-) science. Falsifiable, Gordin points out, is undefinable. If nothing else, every working scientist (and science journalist) should read this chapter to learn that the refrain “if it’s not falsifiable, it’s not science” is philosophically unsound gibberish, a sign of a weak argument.
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/on-t...udoscience
Sounds interesting. I think there's an ''art'' to convincing people to believe certain things, but from my observation, you can't change people's minds. They have to want to change. That said, I think many people (find it easier) to believe kind, thoughtful ''pseudo-scientists'' over actual scientists (who may at times, appear to ''lecture'', apply rigor, etc.) even if the latter is correct.
Anyway, something new to think about . . .
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/on-t...udoscience
Sounds interesting. I think there's an ''art'' to convincing people to believe certain things, but from my observation, you can't change people's minds. They have to want to change. That said, I think many people (find it easier) to believe kind, thoughtful ''pseudo-scientists'' over actual scientists (who may at times, appear to ''lecture'', apply rigor, etc.) even if the latter is correct.
Anyway, something new to think about . . .