Creationism: Science or Pseudoscience? (philosophy)

[Jayhawker Soule]

Science or Pseudoscience: how do you know? What is the "demarcation criteria" distinguishing one from the other?

[(Q)]

Excellent topic - however too lengthy to simply provide content so instead here is a very good read on the subject:

http://www.quackwatch.org/01Quackery...cs/pseudo.html

I would be happy to make any clarifications.

[Jayhawker Soule]

I found it to be a pretty subjective and superficial tirade. He must have edited out the part where the scientists wear white hats and the pseudoscientists wear black hats.

[(Q)]

A tirade yes - but hardly subjective or superficial..

Pseudoscience does more harm than good, especially to those seeking funding. It is a scourge to the scientific community and an atrocity to reason and rationale.

I thought his tirade was rather mild.

[Jayhawker Soule]

It was clearly subjective and superficial. The Philosophy of Science deals seriously with the demarcation criteria; Dr. Coker does not. Rather, he attacks quackery with religious zeal, painting the enemy with an absurdly broad brush. It results in such inane implications as that astrology is pseudoscience because astrological "'research' is invariably sloppy."

On some level, I actually share his zeal - you may have noticed that I can get over-polemical at times. The problem, however, is that Coker has created a naive world that excludes the possibility of honest people involved in pseudoscience: if you're an astrologer you must be a sloppy idiot, a sloppy quack, or both.

[(Q)]

Coker has created a naive world that excludes the possibility of honest people involved in pseudoscience: if you're an astrologer you must be a sloppy idiot, a sloppy quack, or both.

I would have to agree that those involved in astrology (and other pseudosciences) are exactly that as defined by Coker. In fact, I could offer my own metaphors, but I might get banned.

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by (Q)

..., I could offer my own metaphors, but I might get banned.

Too bad. I was hoping for a philosophical discussion rather than a name-calling contest.

[(Q)]

Well, philosophy is not really my bag aside from logic, fallacies and critical thinking. I was always more interested in the practical applications of science and left philosophy to the 'deep thinkers.'

I'm reminded of this quote from a movie:

"Archaeology is the search for FACTS, not truth. If it's truth you're looking for, Prof. Tyree's Philosophy course is right down the hall."

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by (Q)

"Archaeology is the search for FACTS, not truth. If it's truth you're looking for, Prof. Tyree's Philosophy course is right down the hall."

The quote is likewise inaccurate: digging is the search for facts, archaeology is the interpretation of facts.

[(Q)]

I was referring more to the latter half of the quote.