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
  Is ufology a pseudoscience? + The reliability of psychiatric diagnosis + AI doomerism C C 2 423 Oct 2, 2026 07:47 PM
Last Post: Syne
  Article How Scientific American went from fighting pseudoscience to platforming it C C 1 681 Jun 12, 2026 06:13 AM
Last Post: Yazata
  Article PNAS publishes rank pseudoscience C C 2 870 May 2, 2026 05:06 AM
Last Post: Syne
  Article Vladimir Putin’s insistence on pseudoscience is more than just propaganda C C 0 316 Jan 11, 2026 10:50 PM
Last Post: C C
  The science (and pseudoscience) of everyday life C C 0 348 Dec 26, 2025 06:53 PM
Last Post: C C
  Article Despite challenging RFK Jr .... AAP is itself a promoter of alarmist pseudoscience C C 1 875 Jul 15, 2025 03:05 PM
Last Post: Syne
  Article Tests to detect marijuana-impaired driving based on ‘pseudoscience’ C C 0 635 Jun 30, 2025 03:34 PM
Last Post: C C
  Article Occam's razor the only feature that differentiates science from pseudoscience? C C 3 1,373 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 0 626 Nov 10, 2023 06:59 PM
Last Post: C C
  Article ITT (a theory of consciousness) slammed as ‘pseudoscience’ — sparking uproar C C 1 1,042 Sep 24, 2023 08:06 PM
Last Post: Magical Realist



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)