What is the difference between science and pseudoscience?

[Admin]

Pseudoscience is a practice that, from the outside, looks like science, but upon closer inspection, is revealed to be nothing but. And what makes a practice look like science?

What is the difference between science and pseudoscience? : Read more

 

[Questioner]

Science about correlating evidence with explanation/theory using sound logic.
Science uses consistent, honest methodologies to gather data/experience and then examines IF any logical explanation(s) will fit.
The method of science is either in the manner of the work or it is not, period. Everything else is irrelevant.
Beware of imagining publications, academic sheepskins, &/or 'information priesthoods' are any reliable substitute for that care & scrutiny.
Unexamined hearsay is anathema to science.
Scrutiny is its counter.
Adults have to do their own homework.
Real science doesn't PRESUME anything is required to have a rational explanation.
I will add rational numbers are a zero percent fraction of the real number line.
Real science doesn't PRESUME we will magically know what datasets will or will not apply to any particular focus of inquiry. [think of the dataset selection problem of science and the bias trap it creates for the unwary. A compulsion to hammer square pegs into round holes.]
Real science doesn't PRESUME the universe is a closed system, especially in light of the fact Godel already proved that's false. (as if quantum uncertainty didn't already suggest/support that as well.)
By enlarge people seduced by romantic, sanctimonious, inaccurate notions of what they imagine &/or wish science was/is/will-be do not have the hard headed, unforgiving logic as well as the social obliviousness to be reliable, honest examiners of what measures up to viable science product or not.
Science is not a religion replacement font of certainties, but at its best a provider of [sometimes very] high probabilities.
In the end you're on your own,
good luck.

 

[Ryan F. Mercer]

Science is data driven, peer reviewed, and the results are repeatable. It uses control groups, experimental groups, blind, and double blind studies. It doesn't just provide evidence for why a theory is right, but also an explanation for why competing theories are wrong. It is not without bias, because there is no known system that is, but it does provide a reliably definitive methodology for discovering bias and eliminating it.

Pseudoscience pretends to compete with science, but it never actually argues the facts. It side steps them, ignores them, and provides a distraction. It dresses up a lie to make the believer feel uniquely special. Who needs facts when you can feel uniquely special?

 

[Questioner]

Just accept that 'dark matter' is 'science', because self anointed 'professionals' espouse it to be so &
just ignore the fact that it would have self contradicting properties in terms of gravity.
(as well as other tremendous problems)
oops!
defacing the edifice of 'science' with evidentiary facts, again. my bad.

 

[Classical Motion]

Nothing. Nothing at all. Man comes with ignorance, a complete lack of knowledge. Our only method for "knowledge" is comparative "knowledge". We have the arrogance to compare unknowns.....and then we rationalize this comparison. And we call this science. If you disagree with the consensus, it's pseudoscience.

It's another word game our agenda society endures.

Of course our science is innocent of this, because they have experiments to prove their point. That's what they assure us of. But it's like lawyers. They never mention the previous exculpatory experiments......as a matter of fact, no exculpatory experiments are done any longer. The court only has a prosecutor......no defense or opposition is permitted.

The proof of any modern theory is NOT an agreeable, confirming experiment......the proof is not finding a disproving experiment. But it can't be found if not looked for. Who does a non-proving experiment?

As long as human nature remains human nature, we will always have pseudoscience. It's the only science we have. The only nature we have.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

While I basically agree with the distinction made in the article. I do have to say that there are a lot of pseudo-science-like behaviors by cosmology physicists. They too often state their beliefs as fact, or claim them to be so "mainstream" as to be beyond question.

For instance, I see statements on both sides of "Does space expand everywhere?" with some claiming that even the space inside atoms and the nuclei of atoms is expanding, while others claim just as vehemently that it is not expanding in regions dominated by forces other than "dark energy". As far as science goes, both are only theory, with redshifted astronomical observations currently being caused by space expanding, according to the mainstream, although there is no way to determine whether it is expanding at the theorized rate even in this solar system, much less in an atom or atomic nucleus. But, there are insistent believers who will belittle anyone who does not accept their particular beliefs as surely true. But, clearly, they can't both be right - however, they may both be wrong - even if nobody yet understands how.

Real science distinguishes between repeatable measurements and inferences based on theoretical constructs.