Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

How I learned to love pseudoscience

#1
C C Offline
http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2021/10...ience.html

INTRO: On this channel, I try to separate the good science from the bad science, the pseudoscience. And I used to think that we’d be better off without pseudoscience, that this would prevent confusion and make our lives easier. But now I think that pseudoscience is actually good for us. And that’s what we’ll talk about today.

Philosophers can’t agree on just what defines “pseudoscience” but in this episode I will take it to mean theories that are in conflict with evidence, but that promoters believe in, either by denying the evidence, or denying the scientific method, or maybe just because they have no idea what either the evidence or the scientific method is.

But what we call pseudoscience today might once have been science. Astrology for example, the idea that the constellations of the stars influence human affairs was once a respectable discipline. Every king and queen had a personal astrologer to give them advice. And many early medical practices weren’t just pseudoscience, they were often fatal. The literal snake oil, obtained by boiling snakes in oil, was at least both useless and harmless. However, they also prescribed tape worms for weight loss. Though in all fairness, that might actually work, if you survive it.

And sometimes, theories accused of being pseudoscientific turned out to be right, for example the idea that the continents on earth today broke apart from one large tectonic plate. That was considered pseudoscience until evidence confirmed it. And the hypothesis of atoms was at first decried as pseudoscience because one could not, at the time, observe atoms.

So the first lesson we can take away is that pseudoscience is a natural byproduct of normal science. You can’t have one without the other. If we learn something new about nature, some fraction of people will cling on to falsified theories longer than reasonable. And some crazy ideas in the end turn out to be correct.

But pseudoscience isn’t just a necessary evil. It’s actually useful to advance science because it forces scientists to improve their methods... (MORE)


https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/bWV0XIn-rvY
Reply
#2
Ostronomos Offline
Pseudoscience certainly fills in missing pieces of the puzzle in science and can lend validity to the scientific method.
Reply
#3
Syne Offline
I roll my eyes every time I see Hossenfelder. Not really surprised she'd embrace pseudoscience.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Article Occam's razor the only feature that differentiates science from pseudoscience? C C 3 126 Dec 20, 2023 05:21 PM
Last Post: Zinjanthropos
  Article Top five worst ‘uses’ for crystals in the world of wellness and pseudoscience C C 0 54 Nov 10, 2023 06:59 PM
Last Post: C C
  Article ITT (a theory of consciousness) slammed as ‘pseudoscience’ — sparking uproar C C 1 105 Sep 24, 2023 08:06 PM
Last Post: Magical Realist
  Article 10 times the unexpected appearance of pseudoscience ruined entertainment C C 0 63 Jul 25, 2023 07:12 PM
Last Post: C C
  Article "Nature" falls for autism pseudoscience + Politically skewered research funding C C 0 59 May 17, 2023 05:16 PM
Last Post: C C
  Article Research finds no gender bias in academic science + WHO's pseudoscience problem C C 0 69 Apr 29, 2023 06:44 PM
Last Post: C C
  Toxic masculinity is a harmful myth + Electric universe is crank pseudoscience C C 0 298 Oct 19, 2022 12:20 AM
Last Post: C C
  4 categories of pseudoscience — and how to talk to people who believe in them C C 1 87 May 26, 2022 09:41 AM
Last Post: Yazata
  Debunked: “learned helplessness,” a theory developed from a cruel animal experiment C C 0 163 Mar 25, 2022 05:47 PM
Last Post: C C
  When Biblically inspired pseudoscience and clickbait cause looting C C 0 96 Jan 3, 2022 08:13 PM
Last Post: C C



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)