ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Karl Popper , pseudoscience , science

Reply
Old 14th April 2020, 03:01 AM   #1
devhdb
Thinker
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Posts: 133
Thumbs up I challenge you:cite ONE paper that discerns Science from Pseudoscience wth CERTAINTY

Hi all,

I consider myself a true skeptic in the sense that I know that I know nothing... and even I couldn't be sure of that, may I add. :-)

My philosophical and intellectual position is that there is NO WAY to tell science from pseudoscience with certainty. But I'm happily open to you changing my mind, of course.

This is a collective didactic experiment within the community meant to learn from everyone and not to attack anyone but belief systems. Hence, please don't feel offended if your scientific paradigms are questioned for it's nothing personal.

Please, debate nicely, politely and with well manners and I'll do the same. Thanks.



Without further ado, I would like to posit you 5 questions:


1. What are the necessary and sufficient conditions so that a certain assertion, precisely defined and without any kind of ambiguity can be considered scientific vs. a pseudoscientific one? Why don't you cite ONE paper on Philosophy of Science that allows us to follow a logical, rational and consistent method to determine with certainty between science and pseudoscience, that's to say a Demarcation Criterion? -> please cite from Google Scholar.

2. In case that you affirm to be able to discern between science and pseudoscience with certainty, then: what logical, rational and consistent method do you follow to affirm whether String Theory or the Multiverse hypothesis are science or pseudoscience? Are they falseable? And, if they are falseable, how exactly? What type of observable 'datum', directly or indirectly mensurable would refute each of them?

3. What logical, rational and consistent algorithm do you follow to be able to distinguish if Matter and Consciousness are one and the same thing?

4. Can you describe the redness of red as if you were describing it to a man born with blind, from the subjective experience of a self-conscious 'I', 'emerged'? from a viscous matter called brain?

5. What degree of certainty (in percentage) would you demand from a judge to justify his sentence to you for condemning you to indemnify with $100.000 and 5 years of prison for you having slandered the honor of a certain homeopath calling her 'pseudoscientific' without justifying which Demarcation Criterion did you use to discern between Science and Pseudoscience with certainty? 70%?, 95% of certainty? What value (precisely) would leave you satisfied so that your prison sentence would be rationally justified?



My answers:


1. I DON'T KNOW.
2. I DON'T KNOW.
3. I DON'T KNOW.
4. NO.
5. I DON'T KNOW.




FAQ:

Science is what follows THE Scientific Method.

Fine.

In that case:

How do you precisely define THE Scientific Method?
Is it valid for natural sciences and for social sciences as well?

Is Falsifiability a necessary and sufficient condition for a certain assertion to be considered scientific? If not, why?

Most importantly: could you please rebut each one of Karl Popper's 3 arguments against the existence of the Scientific Method?

i.e.:

The Preface to Popper's Realism and the Aim of Science (1983)
A talk to a meeting of the Fellows of the Centre for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences at Stanford in November 1956.


“As a rule, I begin my lectures on Scientific Method by telling my students that
Scientific Method does not exist
. I add that I ought to know, having been for a time, the one and only professor of this non-existent subject within the British Commonwealth.”
—Realism and the Aim of Science, Karl Popper, p. 5

I assert that no scientific method exists in any of these three senses. To put it in a more direct way:

(1) There is no method of discovering a scientific theory.
(2) There is no method of ascertaining the truth of a scientific hypothesis, i. e., no method of verification.
(3) There is no method of ascertaining whether a hypothesis is “probable”, or probably true.


—Realism and the Aim of Science, Karl Popper, p. 6

I believe that the so-called method of science consists in this kind of criticism [severe]. Scientific theories are distinguished from myths merely in being criticizable, and in being open to modifications in the light of criticism. They can be neither verified nor probabilified.
—Realism and the Aim of Science, Karl Popper, p. 7

This alleged but non-existent method [of science] is that of collecting observations and then “drawing conclusions” from them. It is slavishly aped by some historians who believe that they can collect documentary evidence which corresponding to the observations of natural science, forms the “empirical basis” for their conclusions.

This alleged method is one that can never be put into effect: you can neither collect observations nor documentary evidence if you do not first have a problem.
—Objective Knowledge, Karl Popper, p. 186

“What do I teach my students? And how can I teach them?”

Source:
"Realism and the Aim of Science: From the Postscript to The Logic of Scientific Discovery", by Karl Popper, Routledge, 1983.
ISBN-10: 0-415-08400-8. 464 pp. Pages 5 and 6:

Extract @ Google Books: /books?id=tlowU8nS2ygC


Also:

"The theory of natural selection may be so formulated that it is far from tautological. In this case it is not only testable, but it turns out to be NOT STRICTLY UNIVERSALLY TRUE. There seem to be exceptions, as with so many biological theories; and considering the random character o f the variations on which natural selection operates, the occurrence of exceptions is not surprising. Thus not all phenomena of evolution are explained by natural selection alone. Yet in every particular case it is a challenging research program to show how far natural selection can possibly be held responsible for the evolution of a particular organ or behavioral program."

Sources:
[1] Popper, Karl (1976). Unended Quest. La Salle: Open Court. ISBN 0875483437.
[2] Autobiography, Karl Popper. "I consider darwinism as metaphysics and as a research program. It is metaphysics because it is NOT TESTABLE."
Google Books: /books?id=NyCEnehPMd8C&lpg=PP1&dq=unended ques
[3] Miller, David (1985). Popper selections. pp. 239-246. ISBN 978-0691020310.
[4] Evolutionary epistemology, rationality, and the sociology of knowledge, by Karl Popper. pp. 143-147.
Google Books: /books?id=QnFiTrCzg5oC&lpg=PA143&ots=c7x_hTlgH


Happy debate! :-)

Last edited by devhdb; 14th April 2020 at 04:39 AM.
devhdb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2020, 03:11 AM   #2
RedStapler
Muse
 
RedStapler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Posts: 755
Thanks for reminding me that Philosophy (and the "work" of Karl Popper) is utterly worthless.
RedStapler is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2020, 03:21 AM   #3
P.J. Denyer
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 7,549
Originally Posted by RedStapler View Post
Thanks for reminding me that Philosophy (and the "work" of Karl Popper) is utterly worthless.
Thank you, this actually made me laugh out loud. May I belatedly welcome you to the board, I've been enjoying your contributions in the Dragon thread.
__________________
"I know my brain cannot tell me what to think." - Scorpion

"Nebulous means Nebulous" - Adam Hills
P.J. Denyer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2020, 03:22 AM   #4
devhdb
Thinker
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Posts: 133
Originally Posted by RedStapler View Post
Thanks for reminding me that Philosophy (and the "work" of Karl Popper) is utterly worthless.
Hi RedStapler, welcome to the debate.

Please, correct me if I'm wrong, but, from your words, I assume that you cannot tell what is science from pseudoscience, right? I'm glad to read you that, for that's my position as well.

Or can you?

In that case, how precisely do you do it, what is your particular Demarcation Criterion for that?

Thanks.
devhdb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2020, 03:24 AM   #5
devhdb
Thinker
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Posts: 133
Talking

Originally Posted by P.J. Denyer View Post
Thank you, this actually made me laugh out loud. May I belatedly welcome you to the board, I've been enjoying your contributions in the Dragon thread.
Hi P.J. Denyer, welcome.

Could you please share in what precise way did RedStapler's comment make you "laugh out loud", for I didn't get it and I would love to laugh as well! :-D

Thank you.
devhdb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2020, 04:29 AM   #6
RedStapler
Muse
 
RedStapler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Posts: 755
Originally Posted by P.J. Denyer View Post
Thank you, this actually made me laugh out loud. May I belatedly welcome you to the board, I've been enjoying your contributions in the Dragon thread.
Thank you very much!
RedStapler is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2020, 05:01 AM   #7
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 10,560
Question 1) seems to blur the distinction between whether it's asking if it's ever possible to classify an assertion as scientific versus pseudoscientific, or whether it's demanding a set of rules by which every possible assertion can be so classified.

Question 2) confirms it's the latter.

Conclusion 1) declares that if you can't do that then there's no such thing as science.


I am oddly unpersuaded by this argument.
Jack by the hedge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2020, 05:11 AM   #8
erlando
Graduate Poster
 
erlando's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,790
I smell an agenda. Are you a young earth creationist or believer in the flat earth by any chance?

ETA:

This seems oddly specific

Quote:
What degree of certainty (in percentage) would you demand from a judge to justify his sentence to you for condemning you to indemnify with $100.000 and 5 years of prison for you having slandered the honor of a certain homeopath calling her 'pseudoscientific' without justifying which Demarcation Criterion did you use to discern between Science and Pseudoscience with certainty? 70%?, 95% of certainty? What value (precisely) would leave you satisfied so that your prison sentence would be rationally justified?
Are you this "certain homeopath"?
__________________
"If it can grow, it can evolve" - Eugenie Scott, Ph.D Creationism disproved?
Evolution IS a blind watchmaker

Last edited by erlando; 14th April 2020 at 05:19 AM.
erlando is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2020, 05:12 AM   #9
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 93,715
Iíll just reply on my non existent iPad.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2020, 05:13 AM   #10
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 27,121
They'll be some Woo. There's always some Woo.
__________________
- I don't know how to convince you that facts exist
- I don't know how to convince you that you should care about other people
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2020, 05:17 AM   #11
Blue Mountain
Resident Skeptical Hobbit
 
Blue Mountain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Waging war on woo-woo in Winnipeg
Posts: 6,249
While I can't cite any papers, I invite you to consider the fact you created your message using a computer of some description, on a message board connected to the World Wide Web, which is part of the internet. In doing so you have taken advantage of two hundred years of constant progress and understanding of electricity, electromagnetism, quantum mechanics, fibre optics, nanoscale electronics, materials science, chemical engineering, and probably half a dozen other areas of research I haven't mentioned.

Carl Sagan said it many years ago: “Science delivers the goods.” Psuedoscience doesn't, because it has no way of determining if it has succeeded or failed.
__________________
The social illusion reigns to-day upon all the heaped-up ruins of the past, and to it belongs the future. The masses have never thirsted after truth. They turn aside from evidence that is not to their taste, preferring to deify error, if error seduce them. Gustav Le Bon, The Crowd, 1895 (from the French)
Canadian or living in Canada? PM me if you want an entry on the list of Canadians on the forum.
Blue Mountain is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2020, 05:20 AM   #12
devhdb
Thinker
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Posts: 133
Red face

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge View Post
Question 1) seems to blur the distinction between whether it's asking if it's ever possible to classify an assertion as scientific versus pseudoscientific, or whether it's demanding a set of rules by which every possible assertion can be so classified.

Question 2) confirms it's the latter.

Conclusion 1) declares that if you can't do that then there's no such thing as science.


I am oddly unpersuaded by this argument.
Hi Jack, thanks for your contribution.

1) A set of rules is a Demarcation Criterion. You can answer any of both questions.
2) In that case, could you please answer these legit questions?:

* What logical, rational and consistent method do you follow to affirm whether String Theory or the Multiverse hypothesis are science or pseudoscience?
* Are they falseable?
* And, if they are falseable, how exactly?
* What type of observable 'datum', directly or indirectly mensurable would refute each of them?
Conclusion: You haven't succesfully cited ONE paper that does.

Thanks! :-)
devhdb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2020, 05:22 AM   #13
devhdb
Thinker
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Posts: 133
Originally Posted by erlando View Post
I smell an agenda. Are you a young earth creationist or believer in the flat earth by any chance?

ETA:

This seems oddly specific



Are you this "certain homeopath"?
Hi erlando! Thanks for your reply.

My agenda is to learn from you all for I admit that my position seems oddly strange within the Philosophy of Science community, right?
devhdb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2020, 05:23 AM   #14
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 12,461
Nobody ever walked through s doorway because there is no precise definition of the difference between being on one side of the doorway and being in the doorway and no precise definition of the difference between being in the doorway and being on the other side of the doorway.
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"

Last edited by Robin; 14th April 2020 at 05:26 AM.
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2020, 05:23 AM   #15
erlando
Graduate Poster
 
erlando's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,790
Originally Posted by devhdb View Post
Hi erlando! Thanks for your reply.

My agenda is to learn from you all for I admit that my position seems oddly strange within the Philosophy of Science community, right?
Dodge of really easy yes/no questions noted.
__________________
"If it can grow, it can evolve" - Eugenie Scott, Ph.D Creationism disproved?
Evolution IS a blind watchmaker
erlando is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2020, 05:23 AM   #16
devhdb
Thinker
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Posts: 133
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Iíll just reply on my non existent iPad.
Hi Darat, welcome to the debate.

Epistēmē != Techne

Sorry, try again. :-)
devhdb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2020, 05:30 AM   #17
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 10,560
Originally Posted by devhdb View Post
Hi erlando! Thanks for your reply.

My agenda is to learn from you all for I admit that my position seems oddly strange within the Philosophy of Science community, right?
Is your position oddly strange?

I'm not especially familiar with the philosophy of science community so I can't tell how peculiar you are.

Can you perhaps indicate a paper showing a useful Demarcation Criterion by which we can quantify how oddly strange your position really is?

Thanks.
Jack by the hedge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2020, 05:40 AM   #18
devhdb
Thinker
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Posts: 133
Originally Posted by Blue Mountain View Post
While I can't cite any papers, I invite you to consider the fact you created your message using a computer of some description, on a message board connected to the World Wide Web, which is part of the internet. In doing so you have taken advantage of two hundred years of constant progress and understanding of electricity, electromagnetism, quantum mechanics, fibre optics, nanoscale electronics, materials science, chemical engineering, and probably half a dozen other areas of research I haven't mentioned.
Hi Blue Mountain, welcome! I'm afraid that, as I already replied to Darat above:

Epistēmē != Techne

Sorry, try again. ;-)
devhdb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2020, 05:45 AM   #19
devhdb
Thinker
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Posts: 133
Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge View Post
Is your position oddly strange?

I'm not especially familiar with the philosophy of science community so I can't tell how peculiar you are.

Can you perhaps indicate a paper showing a useful Demarcation Criterion by which we can quantify how oddly strange your position really is?

Thanks.
Hi Jack by the hedge, thanks for coming.

My 5 answers to the 5 questions are listed below the 5 questions above.

In other words, I DON'T KNOW that such Demarcation Criterion exists. I'm desperately looking for one, but no one seems to address a single one.

As you all know, the burden of proof goes to the one that makes an assert such as "I know how to tell science from pseudoscience with certainty".

Hence, please show us how do you do it, show us what is your Demarcation Criterion that helps you to tell them apart.

Cheers! :-)
devhdb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2020, 05:47 AM   #20
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 12,461
Originally Posted by devhdb View Post

My agenda is to learn from you all for I admit that my position seems oddly strange within the Philosophy of Science community, right?
It is not clear what your position is.

But if your position is that there is no sharp demarcation between science and pseudoscience then it is quite mainstream. By its nature science must provide leeway for people to be wrong and for motives to be various.
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2020, 05:51 AM   #21
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 12,461
Originally Posted by devhdb View Post

In other words, I DON'T KNOW that such Demarcation Criterion exists. I'm desperately looking for one, but no one seems to address a single one.
Why are you desparately looking for one?

What would be the problem if no such sharp demarcation existed?
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2020, 06:04 AM   #22
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 10,560
Originally Posted by devhdb View Post
Hi Jack by the hedge, thanks for coming.



My 5 answers to the 5 questions are listed below the 5 questions above.



In other words, I DON'T KNOW that such Demarcation Criterion exists. I'm desperately looking for one, but no one seems to address a single one.



As you all know, the burden of proof goes to the one that makes an assert such as "I know how to tell science from pseudoscience with certainty".



Hence, please show us how do you do it, show us what is your Demarcation Criterion that helps you to tell them apart.



Cheers! :-)
I'm not making a claim that I can categorise all possible assertions into science or pseudoscience and I don't know why you think anyone would make that claim.

Is it *your* claim that nothing can be scientific unless it is possible to distinguish whether every possible assertion is scientific or not?
Jack by the hedge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2020, 06:12 AM   #23
devhdb
Thinker
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Posts: 133
Originally Posted by Robin View Post
It is not clear what your position is.

But if your position is that there is no sharp demarcation between science and pseudoscience then it is quite mainstream. By its nature science must provide leeway for people to be wrong and for motives to be various.
You are right, maybe we shouldn't say that a certain homeopath is 100% pseudoscientific but 80% pseudoscientific, or 30% or even 99.5% pseudoscientific, right?

Hmm... I guess that's not the case, for when you call someone a pseudoscientific there's no middle way with words here: such investigator is either

a) a pseudoscientist
b) a scientist

It's either 0% or 100%, right? In the same way that you cannot be 30% pregnant: you either ARE or ARE NOT.

Hence he could sue you for slander unless you properly justify how is it possible that he is a 100% pseudoscientist.

Would you be ready to be sued for slander? In that case, question 5 goes:

5. What degree of certainty (in percentage) would you demand from a judge to justify his sentence to you for condemning you to indemnify with $100.000 and 5 years of prison for you having slandered the honor of a certain homeopath calling her 'pseudoscientific' without justifying which Demarcation Criterion did you use to discern between Science and Pseudoscience with certainty? 70%?, 95% of certainty? What value (precisely) would leave you satisfied so that your prison sentence would be rationally justified?

Thanks! :-)
devhdb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2020, 06:22 AM   #24
devhdb
Thinker
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Posts: 133
Originally Posted by Robin View Post
Why are you desparately looking for one?

What would be the problem if no such sharp demarcation existed?
I'm desperately looking for one for I have been looking for one for the past 13 years without any success. And also, for intellectual satisfaction. :-)

The problem? Oh, it's not that it would be the end of the world, for, after 13 years of desperately looking for it, I'm used to the feeling of not having found it. :-D

But, maybe, and just maybe, it might come as a SHOCK for some kind people here to learn that, as of today, NOBODY has been able to tell science from pseudoscience properly.

Never.

Ever.

:-)

Last edited by devhdb; 14th April 2020 at 06:26 AM.
devhdb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2020, 06:23 AM   #25
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 12,461
Originally Posted by devhdb View Post
Epistēmē != Techne
You forgot to provide your demarcation criterion to distinguish between the two.
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2020, 06:28 AM   #26
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 10,560
Why do you keep conflating the two different matters of discerning pseudoscience at all and a universal rule for spotting pseudoscience in any possible assertion?

Is it this sloppy thinking which means that you have nothing to show for 13 years' work?

In your 13 year study, have you come across no examples at all which you feel you can confidently say are pseudoscience or science?
Jack by the hedge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2020, 06:30 AM   #27
devhdb
Thinker
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Posts: 133
Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge View Post
I'm not making a claim that I can categorise all possible assertions into science or pseudoscience and I don't know why you think anyone would make that claim.

Is it *your* claim that nothing can be scientific unless it is possible to distinguish whether every possible assertion is scientific or not?
Mine is not a claim, mine is a NEGATION: that it can be possible to distinguish between science and pseudoscience.

And, for the simple rules of logic and argumentation, negations don't need to and cannot be "proved". But assertions do. :-)
devhdb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2020, 06:39 AM   #28
devhdb
Thinker
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Posts: 133
Originally Posted by Robin View Post
You forgot to provide your demarcation criterion to distinguish between the two.
If you cannot aprehend by immediate experience the difference between KNOWING something (i.e. what an iPad *is*) and MAKING something (i.e. making an iPad), then the debate is over I'm afraid.

:-)
devhdb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2020, 06:40 AM   #29
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 93,715
Originally Posted by devhdb View Post
Hi Darat, welcome to the debate.

Epistēmē != Techne

Sorry, try again. :-)
I have no idea what your response is meant to mean, could you use English.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2020, 06:41 AM   #30
Apathia
Philosopher
 
Apathia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 5,718
You are expecting or asking for a "certainty" that reality cannot give you and never will.

Science simply goes for the preponderance of evidence of how reality behaves.
Certainty isn't its gig. Indeed some things that were initially regarded as pseudoscience, continental drift for example, have become with the accumulation of evidence, science. And some things initially thought to be scientific, including homeopathy, have with the accumulation of evidence been dismissed. There is no absolute demarcation. Knowledge is functional.

If you are in need of dogma, so called revelatory religion supplies that sort of security. Take The Lotus Sutra for example (Because The Bible isn't the only scripture claiming to fill the aching gap of less than absolute certainty).

Nam Myoho Renge Kyo
__________________
"At the Supreme Court level where we work, 90 percent of any decision is emotional. The rational part of us supplies the reasons for supporting our predilections."
Justice William O. Douglas

"Humans aren't rational creatures but rationalizing creatures."
Author Unknown
Apathia is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2020, 06:41 AM   #31
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 31,151
I think the fallacy on display here is something akin to the fallacy of the excluded middle, but perhaps in reverse. The construction appears to me to go something like this:

P1: Scientists classify investigators as either scientific or pseudoscientific.
P2: There are instances in which a specific investigator cannot be unambiguously assigned to either of these categories.

C: There are no instances in which any investigator can be reliably assigned to either of these categories.

To suggest an alternative construction with the same structure: We generally admit that killing in self-defense is morally acceptable when there is no other alternative, and that killing without provocation is morally unacceptable. However, there are cases where a killer may claim a level of provocation, or be acting in self-defense but have alternatives to killing, where we cannot clearly assign a moral value of acceptable or unacceptable to the act. By the logic in the OP, therefore, we may not make moral judgements on any killing, and therefore, for example, a serial killer could successfully sue anyone for slander who described him or her as immoral because they cannot assign a simple binary moral judgement to any and all killings.

I therefore reject the question as posed in the OP as unworthy of serious consideration.

Dave
__________________
Inspiring discussion of Sharknado is not a good sign for the audience expectations of your new high-concept SF movie sequel.

- Myriad
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2020, 06:45 AM   #32
devhdb
Thinker
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Posts: 133
Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge View Post
Is it this sloppy thinking which means that you have nothing to show for 13 years' work?

In your 13 year study, have you come across no examples at all which you feel you can confidently say are pseudoscience or science?
My thinking is certainly sloppy: I have nothing to show for 13 years of work, no.
No, I haven't come across any examples at all which I feel I can confidently say that are pseudoscience or science.

Hence, hopefully you help me citing just ONE.

-> Google Scholar, please.

:-)
devhdb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2020, 06:46 AM   #33
devhdb
Thinker
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Posts: 133
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
I have no idea what your response is meant to mean, could you use English.
Sure.

KNOWING != MAKING.

Also, you could google episteme & techne.

Better like that? :-)

Last edited by devhdb; 14th April 2020 at 06:47 AM. Reason: episteme techne
devhdb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2020, 06:47 AM   #34
alfaniner
Penultimate Amazing
 
alfaniner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 23,315
See my sig.
__________________
Science is self-correcting.
Woo is self-contradicting.
alfaniner is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2020, 06:57 AM   #35
devhdb
Thinker
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Posts: 133
Originally Posted by Apathia View Post
You are expecting or asking for a "certainty" that reality cannot give you and never will.

Science simply goes for the preponderance of evidence of how reality behaves.
Certainty isn't its gig. Indeed some things that were initially regarded as pseudoscience, continental drift for example, have become with the accumulation of evidence, science. And some things initially thought to be scientific, including homeopathy, have with the accumulation of evidence been dismissed. There is no absolute demarcation. Knowledge is functional.

If you are in need of dogma, so called revelatory religion supplies that sort of security. Take The Lotus Sutra for example (Because The Bible isn't the only scripture claiming to fill the aching gap of less than absolute certainty).

Nam Myoho Renge Kyo
Again, as I mentioned to Robin above:

In other words, you are right, maybe there is NO CERTAINTY and we shouldn't say that a certain homeopath is 100% pseudoscientific but 80% pseudoscientific, right?

Hmm... I guess that's not the case, for when you call someone a pseudoscientific there's no middle way with words here: he is either

a) a pseudoscientifist
b) a scientifist

right?

I'm glad you agree with me that there's no absolute demarcation. :-)
devhdb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2020, 06:57 AM   #36
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 12,461
Originally Posted by devhdb View Post
If you cannot aprehend by immediate experience the difference between KNOWING something (i.e. what an iPad *is*) and MAKING something (i.e. making an iPad), then the debate is over I'm afraid.

:-)
You mean like Plato couldn't and two millenia of philosophers couldn't?

But you have the criterion which can distinguish between the two in all cases with absolute certainty, right?

But you aren't going to tell anyone because you think that it should be obvious to everyone.

When did the making of the iPad start? With Turing, Church and Kleene? Babbage and Lovelace? Jacquard or Pascal?

Or maybe it started when some ancient Greek rubbed some cloth on a piece of amber?

I suppose you know that too with absolute certaintly, but won't tell us.
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"

Last edited by Robin; 14th April 2020 at 06:59 AM.
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2020, 07:09 AM   #37
devhdb
Thinker
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Posts: 133
Originally Posted by alfaniner View Post
See my sig.
Hi alfaniner, welcome!

Science is self-correcting.
Woo is self-contradicting.

I like that.

Please, for sake of argument, let's imagine the following:

- Scientist H investigates an hypothesis: if the relationship between Matter and Consciousness might mean that a certain amount of Matter diluted in water might heal a certain disease, for Matter and Consciousness might be one and the same thing.

He makes 10 experiments and he fails. He changes the conditions in his experiment. (i.e.: instead of making it at sea level he conducts his experiment 4.000 meters above sea level)
He makes 100 experiments and he fails. He changes the conditions in his experiment. (i.e.: he adds a bit of salt to each dilution).
He makes 1000 experiments and he fails. He changes the conditions in his experiment.
He makes 1000000 experiments and he fails. He changes the conditions in his experiment.

1. Is he self-correcting himself, hence being scientific?
2. What's the number of experiments that he has to make in order to ascertain that his hypothesis doesn't work?
3. In what particular way is the hypothesis that Matter and Consciousness might be one and the same would be self-contradicting?

Thanks! :-D
devhdb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2020, 07:16 AM   #38
devhdb
Thinker
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Posts: 133
Originally Posted by Robin View Post
You mean like Plato couldn't and two millenia of philosophers couldn't?

But you have the criterion which can distinguish between the two in all cases with absolute certainty, right?

But you aren't going to tell anyone because you think that it should be obvious to everyone.

When did the making of the iPad start? With Turing, Church and Kleene? Babbage and Lovelace? Jacquard or Pascal?

Or maybe it started when some ancient Greek rubbed some cloth on a piece of amber?

I suppose you know that too with absolute certaintly, but won't tell us.
Please, allow me to clarify this, just in case I am misundestanding you:

Do you mean that science is that AND ONLY THAT *KNOWLEDGE* which produces *TECHNOLOGY*, such as an iPad? Please correct me if I'm wrong... is that your final posture?

Fine.

In that case, please, let me know:

- are Mathematics science?

- what kind of technology has produced String Theory?
- what kind of technology has produced the hypothesis of the Multiverse?

Are String Theory and/or the hypothesis of the Multiverse science of pseudoscience?

Thanks. :-)
devhdb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2020, 07:26 AM   #39
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 10,560
Originally Posted by devhdb View Post
My thinking is certainly sloppy: I have nothing to show for 13 years of work, no.
No, I haven't come across any examples at all which I feel I can confidently say that are pseudoscience or science.

Hence, hopefully you help me citing just ONE.

-> Google Scholar, please.

:-)
If you have been working at this for thirteen years and searching through Google Scholar and have found not a single example of science then I can't help you.

Perhaps you have unique criteria for detecting science.
Jack by the hedge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2020, 07:32 AM   #40
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 12,461
Originally Posted by devhdb View Post
You are right, maybe we shouldn't say that a certain homeopath is 100% pseudoscientific but 80% pseudoscientific, or 30% or even 99.5% pseudoscientific, right?
I am not sure how you got from what I said to that, but maybe you should try again.

The point is that you seem to be saying that if there are cases where it is not completely certain whether something is an X or not X then this implies that there can be no cases in which you can be completely certain if something is X or not X.

I am pointing out that this is a non-sequitur.

When I walk into a house there are points at which you could not say for certain that I was in the house or not in the house. That does not imply that there are cases in which I am definitely in the house.

The absence of a sharp demarcation between X and not X does not imply that nothing can be X and it does not imply that nothing can be not X
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:29 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.