"Cargo Cult Science"

[painted wolf]

An interesting talk about why pseudoscience fails to work and some examples of common pseudosciences and where they miss out.

I would love to see some of these strive to be more scientific, do you think that knowing where they miss the mark will help them or would it just be dismissed? Afterall, many of these make lots of money and stand to loose it.

I know in Cryptozoology circles there is a small but growing push to become more scientific. One of my favorite examples is Darren Nash of the Tetrapod Zoology blog who in his spare time studies "sea monsters" and the cryptid felines of Britain.

Anyway here's the link to the vid, let me know what you think. (be warned it's kinda long, but IMHO worthwhile)

[youtube]YnVmgLQVyNo[/youtube]
Gen Con Indianapolis 2010 Presentation: Cargo Cult Science - YouTube

wa:do

 

[idav]

They did a good job on explaining quantum abuse with the observer theory. That is a good example of how good science can become pseudo very quickly.

 

[painted wolf]

Or how desperate the pseudo crowd is to latch onto science jargon in hopes of legitimacy.

wa:do

 

[idav]

Or how desperate the pseudo crowd is to latch onto science jargon in hopes of legitimacy.

wa:do

It is the part about making a claim as true before testing for it. I'm kinda in between on that. You can't test for something without having a hypothesis and your hypothesis will have predictions just like many claims. Many earlier scientific discoveries were an effort to prove spiritual claims which I''m sure ended up backfiring.

 

[painted wolf]

It is the part about making a claim as true before testing for it. I'm kinda in between on that. You can't test for something without having a hypothesis and your hypothesis will have predictions just like many claims. Many earlier scientific discoveries were an effort to prove spiritual claims which I''m sure ended up backfiring.

I think the vital difference between hypothesis and claims is that hypothesis are provisional and are actively tested to determine their basis in fact. They also don't add a bunch of other hypothesis on top of something that may not be factual.

Claims are not tested and often used as a basis to add more untestable claims on top. For example: water has memory... then add all the other claims of homeopathy onto that claim... all built onto one untested claim.

So the problem isn't making the claim, it's assuming it's true and then building more assumptions on top of it. The plane won't fly.

wa:do