Science or Pseudoscience: how do you know? What is the "demarcation criteria" distinguishing one from the other?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Creationism: Science or Pseudoscience?
- Thread starter Jayhawker Soule
- Start date
Excellent topic - however too lengthy to simply provide content so instead here is a very good read on the subject:
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pseudo.html
I would be happy to make any clarifications.
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pseudo.html
I would be happy to make any clarifications.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Too bad. I was hoping for a philosophical discussion rather than a name-calling contest.(Q) said:..., I could offer my own metaphors, but I might get banned.
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."
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."
The quote is likewise inaccurate: digging is the search for facts, archaeology is the interpretation of facts.(Q) said:
Mr Spinkles
Mr
I love Raiders of the Lost Ark and the rest of the Indiana Jones movies.
Duet-- besides being sloppy idiots, sloppy quacks, or both, what are astrologers? I'm just trying to get the discussion moving again.
Duet-- besides being sloppy idiots, sloppy quacks, or both, what are astrologers? I'm just trying to get the discussion moving again.
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
I would say that Astrologers are also keen at psycology, they know how to work their audiance. If they didn't know how to keep people believing in them than they wouldn't have work.
it is perhaps the only truely nice thing I can say about them.
wa:do
it is perhaps the only truely nice thing I can say about them.
wa:do
standing_on_one_foot
Well-Known Member
The difference between science and pseudoscience? I'd say it's one main thing: in science, you follow the facts to where they take you, whereas in pseudoscience, you begin with a conclusion and try to find data that take you there. With science, periodically you mess up, certainly, but if you're an honest scientist, you need to follow the data. They come first, the conclusion comes after. It doesn't work perfectly, of course; scientists are human and have their biases and failings like everyone else.
Now pseudoscience (like creationism) begins with a conclusion (like the world being created roughly 6000 years ago) and try to find data to support it afterwards (often distorting, misinterpreting, or ignoring data, as is conveniant). That's the big difference, as I see it.
Does astrology even fall under the category of "science" (pseudo or otherwise)? How? I mean, it's got no proof, and you really need that to be science...
Now pseudoscience (like creationism) begins with a conclusion (like the world being created roughly 6000 years ago) and try to find data to support it afterwards (often distorting, misinterpreting, or ignoring data, as is conveniant). That's the big difference, as I see it.
Does astrology even fall under the category of "science" (pseudo or otherwise)? How? I mean, it's got no proof, and you really need that to be science...
Zero Faith
Member
The fundamental problem with pseudoscience is that it does not follow the scientific method. This article describes the scientific method in some detail; I've outlined the main steps below:
1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.
As has been said before, all pseudoscientific disciplines begin with a theory (that's step 5, people, when constant experiment and observation evolves hypotheses into theories). It's not like astrologers noticed that people born in the same month behaved similarily, then tested drinking water, temperature shifts, weather patterns, etc, then finally settled on the patterns of the stars as the correlation. Similarily, creationists believe that God created the Universe, and 'seek' evidence to support that conclusion.
Beginning with a conclusion and finding evidence to support it introduces intellectual dishonesty, subconscious denial and monumental bias.
If the truth is that God created reality, then science will come to that conclusion based on evidence it has found and will find. That evidence shouldn't have to be sought out like some cosmic scavenger hunt.
Any 'fact' that needs to be accepted by its proponents before they can begin proving it is pseudoscience.
1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.
As has been said before, all pseudoscientific disciplines begin with a theory (that's step 5, people, when constant experiment and observation evolves hypotheses into theories). It's not like astrologers noticed that people born in the same month behaved similarily, then tested drinking water, temperature shifts, weather patterns, etc, then finally settled on the patterns of the stars as the correlation. Similarily, creationists believe that God created the Universe, and 'seek' evidence to support that conclusion.
Beginning with a conclusion and finding evidence to support it introduces intellectual dishonesty, subconscious denial and monumental bias.
If the truth is that God created reality, then science will come to that conclusion based on evidence it has found and will find. That evidence shouldn't have to be sought out like some cosmic scavenger hunt.
Any 'fact' that needs to be accepted by its proponents before they can begin proving it is pseudoscience.
1. The first thing to remember is that the Bible is not a science book. Yet, when it does make statements that are of a "scientific" nature, it is correct. That has proven to be the case time and again and regardless of with which branch of science the debate deals. For many centuries now the Bible has proven itself to be a truthful and reliable source of information.
2. The perceived conflicts between the Bible and science arise primarily when one side or the other of the debate dogmatically adheres to a position that is not supported by the demonstrable facts. In a supposed attempt to uphold the Bible, the creationistsmostly allied with fundamentalist Protestantshave insisted that the earth and the universe are less than 10,000 years old. This extreme view has invited the ridicule of geologists, astronomers, and physicists, for it contradicts their findings. Some fundamentalists insist that the creative days are literal, restricting earthly creation to a period of 144 hours. This provokes skepticism in scientists, for they feel that this claim conflicts with clear scientific observations. I respectfully submit that it is the fundamentalist interpretation of the Biblenot the Bible itselfthat is at odds with science. The Bible does not say that each creative day was 24 hours long; indeed, it includes all these days in the much longer day showing that not all Biblical days contained just 24 hours (Genesis 2:4). There is a very strong Biblical argument that can be made that these days, at the very least, are thousands of years in length. The idea of creation has been given a bad name by creationists and fundamentalists. Their dogmatic teachings on the age of the universe and the length of the creative days are in harmony neither with reasonable and true science nor with the Bible. Science also has its crackpots, excuse me, scientists who have extreme positions that are held to just as religiously and that are not supported by the demonstrable facts. In other words, these conflicts arise due to the failings of men rather than from any real failings found within the Bible.
3. Set aside, just for the moment, the question of time line. And then consider the information presented in the creation accounts recorded in the Bible. Even though they are very brief and simple we are informed of many significant events. And among the sacred writings of the worlds major religions only the Bible relates that God created something out of nothing, this being one of the meanings of the Hebrew word, ba·ra´´, rendered create, and some scientists now agree that is what happened. Also, based on demonstrable facts, scientists have now provided us with the order in which life appeared on earth and it is the same order recorded in the Bible over 3500 years ago. There are many scientists who have postulated the steps or significant events that would be required to get from "the beginning point" (again, some scientist now believe that the universe had a beginning point, some even believe that the universe around us demonstrates design and intelligence and in a form of creation but still reject a personal Creator) to an inhabitable earth; those postulations, when boiled down to their most basic elements, are remarkably similar to what we find recorded in Genesis.
4. Now to the question of time line. On one extreme you find the six 24-hour days camp and a time line that goes something like this: 6 days (144 hours) + the amount of time between Adam's creation and today = 6000 years give or take. On the other extreme you find many camps that postulate time lines of many billions of years where our sun, solar system and earth are generally thought to be about half the age of the physical universe (I have read recent estimates for the age of the physical universe ranging from 8 20 billion years). Interestingly, the positions taken by the camps on either extreme of this question are based on a misreading and a misinterpretation of the record that requires one to exercise a religious faith to be able to accept it. No doubt the truth of the matter will not be found in either of the extremes.
5. Let me say this to the six days camp. The question is not Could God create everything in six days (144 hours)? The answer to that question is: yes, absolutely! Followed up by this question, What took you so long? For I firmly believe that if God had chosen to do so He could have created everything instantly and in a fully completed and perfectly livable condition. However, the actual question we are dealing with here is DID God create everything in six days (144 hours)? Or did He, being the timeless One, feel no urgency and therefore worked within the laws of the physical universe that He Himself established and which may have required the passage of some considerable time (more than 144 hours and less than many billions of years)? If God chooses not to directly reveal the answer then it may require us to live long enough to observe the answer firsthand as we exit the seventh day of rest from creative works (which we are still within) and again enter into another period (day) when God produces creative works.
6. Let me say this to the billions of years camp. Why are there so many different and so widely varied ages given for the earth and the universe if those ages are actually being determined based on a set of demonstrable facts? The obvious answer is that they are not. That puts those ages into the realm of theory. And theories must be accepted, not based on demonstrable facts rather, on belief or faith, isn't that right? Consider this: encyclopedias from around the turn of the last century speak of the scientific estimates of the age of the earth and of the time required for evolution to do its work as being many millions of years. But now, only a century later, we find that the scientific estimates have lengthened by a thousandfold and stretch into the billions of years. Could it be that as men discover how truly complex the universe and the life it contains actually is that more and more time becomes required for their theories to appear believable? I once read a quotation, as best I remember, that was attributed to Louis Pasteur, and the gist of it was that the problem with scientists is that they only get the results they WANT to get. For quite a long time now the vast majority of scientist have been devout atheist/evolutionist. (See #2 above.) Could it be that man does not yet have information accurate enough to be able to come up with the answers? Quite likely. Could it be that one of the major unknowns not accounted for within the scientific calculations is God and his creative activities? No doubt. Now I realize that it is hard to say yes to that last question when you do not even believe in God, therefore, how can you ever hope to find the answer to that question? Does that also amount to psuedoscience?
2. The perceived conflicts between the Bible and science arise primarily when one side or the other of the debate dogmatically adheres to a position that is not supported by the demonstrable facts. In a supposed attempt to uphold the Bible, the creationistsmostly allied with fundamentalist Protestantshave insisted that the earth and the universe are less than 10,000 years old. This extreme view has invited the ridicule of geologists, astronomers, and physicists, for it contradicts their findings. Some fundamentalists insist that the creative days are literal, restricting earthly creation to a period of 144 hours. This provokes skepticism in scientists, for they feel that this claim conflicts with clear scientific observations. I respectfully submit that it is the fundamentalist interpretation of the Biblenot the Bible itselfthat is at odds with science. The Bible does not say that each creative day was 24 hours long; indeed, it includes all these days in the much longer day showing that not all Biblical days contained just 24 hours (Genesis 2:4). There is a very strong Biblical argument that can be made that these days, at the very least, are thousands of years in length. The idea of creation has been given a bad name by creationists and fundamentalists. Their dogmatic teachings on the age of the universe and the length of the creative days are in harmony neither with reasonable and true science nor with the Bible. Science also has its crackpots, excuse me, scientists who have extreme positions that are held to just as religiously and that are not supported by the demonstrable facts. In other words, these conflicts arise due to the failings of men rather than from any real failings found within the Bible.
3. Set aside, just for the moment, the question of time line. And then consider the information presented in the creation accounts recorded in the Bible. Even though they are very brief and simple we are informed of many significant events. And among the sacred writings of the worlds major religions only the Bible relates that God created something out of nothing, this being one of the meanings of the Hebrew word, ba·ra´´, rendered create, and some scientists now agree that is what happened. Also, based on demonstrable facts, scientists have now provided us with the order in which life appeared on earth and it is the same order recorded in the Bible over 3500 years ago. There are many scientists who have postulated the steps or significant events that would be required to get from "the beginning point" (again, some scientist now believe that the universe had a beginning point, some even believe that the universe around us demonstrates design and intelligence and in a form of creation but still reject a personal Creator) to an inhabitable earth; those postulations, when boiled down to their most basic elements, are remarkably similar to what we find recorded in Genesis.
4. Now to the question of time line. On one extreme you find the six 24-hour days camp and a time line that goes something like this: 6 days (144 hours) + the amount of time between Adam's creation and today = 6000 years give or take. On the other extreme you find many camps that postulate time lines of many billions of years where our sun, solar system and earth are generally thought to be about half the age of the physical universe (I have read recent estimates for the age of the physical universe ranging from 8 20 billion years). Interestingly, the positions taken by the camps on either extreme of this question are based on a misreading and a misinterpretation of the record that requires one to exercise a religious faith to be able to accept it. No doubt the truth of the matter will not be found in either of the extremes.
5. Let me say this to the six days camp. The question is not Could God create everything in six days (144 hours)? The answer to that question is: yes, absolutely! Followed up by this question, What took you so long? For I firmly believe that if God had chosen to do so He could have created everything instantly and in a fully completed and perfectly livable condition. However, the actual question we are dealing with here is DID God create everything in six days (144 hours)? Or did He, being the timeless One, feel no urgency and therefore worked within the laws of the physical universe that He Himself established and which may have required the passage of some considerable time (more than 144 hours and less than many billions of years)? If God chooses not to directly reveal the answer then it may require us to live long enough to observe the answer firsthand as we exit the seventh day of rest from creative works (which we are still within) and again enter into another period (day) when God produces creative works.
6. Let me say this to the billions of years camp. Why are there so many different and so widely varied ages given for the earth and the universe if those ages are actually being determined based on a set of demonstrable facts? The obvious answer is that they are not. That puts those ages into the realm of theory. And theories must be accepted, not based on demonstrable facts rather, on belief or faith, isn't that right? Consider this: encyclopedias from around the turn of the last century speak of the scientific estimates of the age of the earth and of the time required for evolution to do its work as being many millions of years. But now, only a century later, we find that the scientific estimates have lengthened by a thousandfold and stretch into the billions of years. Could it be that as men discover how truly complex the universe and the life it contains actually is that more and more time becomes required for their theories to appear believable? I once read a quotation, as best I remember, that was attributed to Louis Pasteur, and the gist of it was that the problem with scientists is that they only get the results they WANT to get. For quite a long time now the vast majority of scientist have been devout atheist/evolutionist. (See #2 above.) Could it be that man does not yet have information accurate enough to be able to come up with the answers? Quite likely. Could it be that one of the major unknowns not accounted for within the scientific calculations is God and his creative activities? No doubt. Now I realize that it is hard to say yes to that last question when you do not even believe in God, therefore, how can you ever hope to find the answer to that question? Does that also amount to psuedoscience?
standing_on_one_foot
Well-Known Member
This post seems awfully familiar. But yes, were a scientist to just go around making up data or otherwise messing with them to get "desired results," that would indeed be pseudoscience.
standing_on_one_foot
Well-Known Member
Hope said:
It's not the fact that it involves faith (just about everything involves faith when you get right down to it, be it faith in God or faith that the laws of the universe will continue to work or faith that people aren't just lying to you about their data or whatever), it's the process that makes it science or not. Creationism starts with a conclusion and ends with evidence. Evolution does the opposite. You may or may not think it's true, but evolution is a scientific idea.