Search blog.co.uk

Science vs. Pseudo science

by ranfuchs @ 02/03/2008 - 09:30:19

The world ‘scientific’ and ‘science’ have been misused too often, mainly to strengthen arguments or claims. However, quite often the ‘science’ presented is all but scientific. Sometimes it’s not easy to know if a claim is scientific or not.

A good guideline can be to think whether you can imagine new facts being discovered that have the potential to support or reject a claim. That is, science is potentially provable and refutable. Every proof is temporary while refutation is for ever. For example, a new discovery in the nuclear processes field may confirm or force us to throw away everything we know about the age of the universe. So although our understanding of the age of the universe may not be true, it is scientific: it is the best explanation we have come up with to fit the facts we know.

On the other hand, the fact that we have not been able to refute something does not make it scientific. So while there is no conceivable way to prove heaven and hell, our inability to prove it does not make it scientific (nor true).

This is the crux of most scientific-religious arguments. While religion tries to show any ‘not yet known’ in a scientific theory as a proof that the scientific theory is invalid, it presents irrefutable claims (often tautologies) as proofs.

And to think how many people have been killed, and are still being killed over our inability to accept that we just need to live with this gap, as it can never be bridged.


 
 

Trackback address for this post:

authimage

Comments, Trackbacks: Hide subcomments

SidneySmithSidneySmith [Member]
02/03/08 @ 10:05

Well said. The current religious attacks on evolution are pretty worrying and show a basic lack of understanding of the science. I think its important that evolution and the evidence for it is presented in a way that is convincing to people without a scientific background as the religious claims are normally just sound bites. They provide no evidence and the claims are often rediculous but they present them in a way that appears logical to someone who hasn't had the basics of the theory explained (such as they have never seen a banana produce a dog - they always seem to use bananas as an example, weird!). I think part of this may make up my next post. Well cheers and good post.

deleted user [Visitor]

02/03/08 @ 10:27

I play with Lego.

ranfuchsranfuchs [Member]
02/03/08 @ 10:36

do you like it?

deleted user [Visitor]

02/03/08 @ 13:34

not really but peer preassure is a bitch.

ranfuchsranfuchs [Member]
02/03/08 @ 13:59

something some learn to ignore, and enjoy life

CassandraofTroyCassandraofTroy [Member]
02/03/08 @ 14:05

As Richard Dawkins says, when people label him as a 'fundamentalist' atheist, the difference between him and a fundamentalist is that he would be quite prepared to change his views - in the face of sound evidence.
another good topic for my conference.

ranfuchsranfuchs [Member]
02/03/08 @ 14:24

one of my favourtie topics, by the way

CassandraofTroyCassandraofTroy [Member]
02/03/08 @ 14:56

Cool.
When the MOMD gets his finger out and sorts out a date and location, I'll send you the Call for Papers.

CassandraofTroyCassandraofTroy [Member]
02/03/08 @ 14:59

I'll also dig out another of my old papers for you to read.
I assume with all this traveling you've been doing, you had plenty of time to read the last one on the plane ;)

ranfuchsranfuchs [Member]
02/03/08 @ 15:11

sure. Love reading. Writing is the problem :)

There seems to be a backlash going on at the moment against science...in some respects, this isn't surprising. So many research results are coming out everyday turning something claimed previously and now proven to be erroneous...people don't know what to believe...to fall back on religion to supply answers to those questions the scientists cannot answer, because the claims are not of this world, seems to be a backward step that could be incredibly dangerous for the world...
Heard this morning that George Shultz has done a complete about turn on nuclear weapons!! Here's an article with some surprising names attached to it as well...
http://abolition2000europe.org/index.php?op=ViewArticle&articleId=249&blogId=1
Whether it's too late, I don't know, but have been saying this for donkey's years...LOL...big hugs...

ranfuchsranfuchs [Member]
02/03/08 @ 21:45

I am aware of this, but I think that the origin of the problem is a bit different. Until not so long ago, there was a lot of respect for knowledge, for quality. There was a big difference between popular and good. This, however, was not good commercially, and the trend started of popular is good.

If a movie is a best seller, it is a good movie
Writers do not write for readers but to market
New age philosophies of truth is relative and personal and one truth is as good as another has been another contributor to the trend, and that intuition and feeling is much more important than thinking and detailed work, as ‘the truth is within us’
The internet and the wikies is the maximisation of this phenomenon: a vote is a vote regardless.

This has blurred people understanding that they don’t know. Many, in our culture feel that knowledge that is not relevant to your immediate survival is not important, and that ‘my view is just as valid as anyone else’s’. With such a worldview, you cannot expect people to respect knowledge acquired through hard detailed work. And as modern science is so different to our intuition, it is the easiest to mock and disregard.

Funnily enough, I have seen a similar phenomenon in the circus the other day. The acrobats where performing absolutely amazingly, yet lots of youngsters were laughing at them, and not appreciating their performance. Yet again, if all your experience of stunts comes from TV, and you have never tried anything like this yourself, it’s just too easy not to recognize true talent and expertise. (blurring the difference between killing in computer game and real life is another example)

In short, I have no doubt that as a society we are getting dumber. But this has always happened to societies that had reached their peak: Greece, Rome, Ottoman, and many others. It is time for young cultures to rise. As a culture we are must too old and stale. We need to be replaced.

Very interesting comment, Ranfuchs, I've suspected the last part for a while now, but found it such a depressing conclusion, I was hoping it wasn't true, but I think it is. When do you think this happened...this disregard for the real and proven? Or maybe it was a gradual decline into what we have now, but I still wonder when it started...I've known very few people indeed who were actually interested in science...I probably bored the pants of people because I've always loved reading and researching what the latest discoveries were, but tended to be a lone voice sometimes trying to find out what those were...LOL...I have no idea what culture will replace us but I've got a feeling it will be far more like the one I wished I lived in...then again, it may try to give the masses what they want to keep them happy by borrowing from us...that will be disastrous for them...but how do you warn a burgeoning culture it needs to go by another route altogether because the one we're on is doomed? I'm afraid the new cultures will be composed of masses of relatively uneducated people who look at ours and think it has got everything they want...I guess that's something we'll just have to wait and see what happens...

ranfuchsranfuchs [Member]
03/03/08 @ 09:26

I think we start seeing this replacement happening gradually. It comes from the east. China, India, even Eastern Europe. These countries are leaping ahead of us in every education tests. They are building strong manufacturing facilities, wealth, but they also invest greatly in innovation. They are also very ambitious nationally; just see the Chinese space program.

So this will not be an overnight approach. But when you speak to a Chinese school kids, they want to be a scientist, mathematician or engineer. When you speak to a English kids, they want to be pop starts, fashion designers, or live on the doll.

Ok, this is a crude generalization, but the trend is definitely there.

Take three countries for instance, Japan, Singapore and Israel. Three of then had nothing as far as resources or money. And the three of them managed to build amazing technology and industry in one generation, all thanks to education. Replicate such model to China, and what chance do we have?

Israel!! Had no money, it's the most subsidised nation on earth! It gets more each year than other countries with huge numbers of people in them and appalling poverty...it's an absolute disgrace...how do you think it could afford all its huge arsenal of weapons, including nuclear weapons...but it doesn't want any of it close neighbours to have them...what damn hypocrisy...It's taken the best and most fertile areas of Palestine, it's hogged the water supplies, and the Jewish people around the world in all fields of expertise, of which there are always many, have contributed to its advances in industry and technology...the people who took Israel weren't capable of doing a quarter of what they have achieved...sore point there, Ranfuchs...sorry, if this sounds anti-Jewish, it's not it's anti-Israel...it was a mistake on such a massive scale it will reverberate through history for a very, very long time...and we haven't seen anything yet...big hugs...

ranfuchsranfuchs [Member]
03/03/08 @ 11:15

Wow, I a real sore point, so at last I managed to find that you are religious after all; such religious zealously. I love when I do it :>

All I was talking about is technological advancement, the fact that such a small country managed to develop strong scientific base, and you start shooting political issues. When I mentioned China, you didn’t mention all they help they got to develop their technology and they still get foreign aid and use it to develop space program. Nor did you ever support me on the Chinese atrocities. (say, using prisoners to harvest organs)

You have never expressed such fervour about Sudan, Algeria, Iran, Colombia, Cuba, Cambodia, and many other places, places where many more have been deported, tortured and massacred than in Israel. So, it’s nothing to do with the graveness of the atrocities performed. So what is it that makes it so sore for you, so one sided for you, more than any other place in the world?

:)) Yup, sore point indeed...it has always troubled me intensely that a piece of land can be claimed back after losing it two thousand years ago on the grounds that a god, who doesn't exist, gave it to a particular people...it took me years to rid myself of the brain washing I received as a child and then into my later life that the Bible had valid historical facts and people in it...when I discovered that in reality it's almost entirely a book of fiction as far as Jewish history is concerned except for later parts, and even then gross exaggerations are present, I realised the vast amount of damage it has done to our world...I was afraid way back in the past that the reclamation of Israel would trigger off eventually a whole gamut of peoples claiming back land lost centuries ago, and you only have to look around the world now to see that has been happening and it's only just begun to gather speed, and will continue to do so...today, so many people are fearful of opening their mouths to say anything that might be construed at anti-Semitism that injustice and outrage is allowed to continue with no country daring to say enough is bloody enough...recently 101 Palestinians have been killed in violent retribution for the deaths of less than a handful of Jewish people...the world condemns it, and what happens? Israel turns round and says it's not stopping, it's going to continue destroying Palestinian people, their homes, and their economy until they bow down before their conquerors and hand over the whole of Palestine to Israel because that is what their far right wing Orthodox Jewish people want...??? This says to us, that the entire world is helpless to prevent Israel continuing to do this...how did they acquire such power? By continually, almost on a daily basis, reminding the whole world that they let the German people murder six million of them and nobody lifted a finger to stop it...guilt cannot in the end be passed down the generations, and one day, they are going to discover all this publicity will have a terrible backlash on them...it's like watching a terrible play unfold when you can foresee the end and only a few amongst the audience can see it too, and it's too late to change it...China has committed atrocities and no doubt still is in our eyes, not that we don't also commit them, but then we're setting ourselves up as the conscience of the world so long as you close your eyes to our crimes against humanity, I know all the other countries that you mention have seriously bad human rights records but then all of them have been pawns at some point in the hands of our most powerful countries...Israel has not...it has too many powerful lobbyists around the world to let itself be used as a pawn...if anything, it uses those countries to keep it in existence...you're right, I'm mad that this has happened because I'm very, very afraid of what it might one day trigger off...now you must be a very happy bunny...LOL...

ranfuchsranfuchs [Member]
03/03/08 @ 12:56

Let's take hipothetical situation. Let's assume that the German (French Dutch American, you choose) would fire 10-20 missiles into the UK each day, say for a few months, with only a few English people getting killed every few days?

First you would try to have cease fire, then negotiations, but every cease fire is used just to rearm the German, and hen they start shooting again. You retliate, agree again on cease fire, and then they would be shooting again?

Out of curiosity, what would you have done, or required the UK governement to do under such conditions?

Let's face it, Ranfuchs, if we'd responded like Israel and gone in and bombed the hell out of (I'll take your first suggestion) Germany, killing its women and children as well as its alleged members of some political group we'd absolutely refused to talk with because they don't think we should exist, and destroyed as many of Germany's utilities as well, taken their fertile areas for ourselves and made sure we had the major supplies of water in the already arid land...I'd say we would be guilty of bloody war crimes...overkill is not an acceptable response under any circumstances...I would have looked at why the hell Germany was lobbing these missiles, which incidentally are only small, into our country so regularly...and wouldn't the most important discovery be that we'd walked into Germany and said that a whole section of it was ours because our god gave it to us thousands of years ago, and the German people could do nothing about it because sanctioned by the powers that be mainly to get the Zionist fanatics off their backs...the Balfour Declaration in the real world...there is so much wrong with the situation in that part of the world, it beggars belief...there is nothing more dangerous on this earth than the belief that you are chosen by a god, and three major religions now believe that...we're in deep trouble, Ranfuchs...

ranfuchsranfuchs [Member]
04/03/08 @ 00:04

For me, hatred is hatred, regardless of its reason, origin, religion or beliefs that made it be. Hatred does not discriminate, and it poisons all minds holding it. See: http://www.authspot.com/Poetry/License-to-Kill.86841

I'm afraid that's not an adequate answer...the reality is both sides hate...I agree that hatred is a seriously bad thing to carry around with you, but it's there in all conflicts, and writing a poem about it unfortunately isn't going to change the minds of those filled with it...and neither side gives a damn what you and I feel about it...they'll go on trying to defeat each other and, in the end, there will be no winners, just another generation of youngsters born to carry on the hatred burning in their parents....damn tragic...

ranfuchsranfuchs [Member]
03/03/08 @ 13:03

Out of curiosity 2. You seem to blame Israel for lobbying people to keep it’s own existence (anything, it uses those countries to keep it in existence). You therefore seem to indicate that Israel has problem of existence. Now that is interesting. If you argued that they don’t have problem of existence than you may have a strong argument, but if it is existential problem as Israel, do you expect them to simply agree to die, or alternatively would England accept all of them as migrant?

Not even English would agree to such a solution (I mean if they were the ones to die) after all they did go after Germany and inflicted much more pain on Germany than Germany had ever inflicted on England.

No, there were quite a few very eminent Jewish thinkers who thought that it was a terrible mistake to try to return to the land of their forefathers...Argentina, I believe, offered the Jewish people after the war, an enclave within their borders, but the Zionists wanted Israel back. Because the whole existence of Israel is tied up with Biblical prophecy, you cannot avoid concluding that those who pursued its return had an agenda of their own. Once it was reclaimed, you had the Christian zealots jumping up and down and reading things into their bibles, and are still doing it today, particularly in the USA, the end timers with their belief in Armageddon and such prophesies for example...it is so dangerous to build a world view on the imaginings of a group of people who believed themselves set apart from the rest of the world...we are still suffering from the terrible consequences of that fantasy...

DominicGeeDominicGee [Member]
03/03/08 @ 11:48

What is so damaging about Creationism that makes you want it abolished?
I do not believe in Creationism and I believe the theory of evolution holds many of the answers, but neither is absolute. I'm simply waiting for a development of the theory, or a new one.
Secondly, I'm not sure that anybody seriously uses the teleological argument as a proof of the existence of god. Something we inherited from the Romantics - belief in god is faith, not reason based.
Surely in a free society, people can believe what they wish. Seeing as the theory of our coming to be here has no actual impact on our lives, does it matter what you belive? I'm not talking about other religions because they are concerned with our behaiviour and actions - but evolution or creationism - it actually doesn't make a difference does it?

ranfuchsranfuchs [Member]
03/03/08 @ 23:59

Is it what I wrote? Where did I claim that creationism should be abolished?

Not only that I didn't say anything against creationism. I can't see anywhere in which I made any judgment that science is better than pseudo science.

Surely in a free society, people can believe what they wish, I just wish they also understood what others believed in.

DominicGeeDominicGee [Member]
04/03/08 @ 09:51

I know that isn't what you said, but it is part of the issue. In this day and age where people have such divided opinions of things, it seems to push people to extremes in order to defend their views. If you say you are a Christian for example, people tend to assume that you are creationist, or if you are a Darwinist, you are clearly an aethiest. I'm just saying that we have to be wary of being pushed to either end as a way of defending our ideas. I agree entirely with what you said about pseudo-science, there is a lot of it about.

ranfuchsranfuchs [Member]
04/03/08 @ 09:54

I agree. But why do you think it's a problem of this day and age? I think our entire history has been just like that

DominicGeeDominicGee [Member]
04/03/08 @ 10:43

True, but generally speaking, in the past there was agreement between the religions (the largest of the institutions)that God was creator of the universe. Of course, as our understanding of science has increased, our 'need' for a supernatural being has been reduced in this sense. But human development is not entirely technologic. We are exactly the same as we were 2000 years ago, we just have greater power in the form of science and technology. But is science the krux of our progress?
I'd say it is something of THIS day and age because for the first time, consensus is on the side of science rather than God (at least in western Europe, I can't speak for the rest of the world). In a way, Darwinism is merely replacing religion and could be just as damaging. If science is the pinnacle of knowledge, do we admit only a purely material/physical world?

ranfuchsranfuchs [Member]
04/03/08 @ 20:37

Interesting questions. I don't think that science necessarily equated materialism. Do you think it does?

TomTheCatTomTheCat [Member]
03/03/08 @ 17:56

look what a hell of a lot scientists practically do day by day:
- experiments with animals...
- research of other planets (life on mars?)...
- research of the best working weapon...
- 'produce' of antidepressiva and other drugs...
and, and, and...
with other words: using knowledge for making money on the backs of living creatures...

but many of the people who just try to find love in this world are rejected in many ways.

from this point of view i rather have relations with them who are pseudo-scientific, even i know that they can be far out sometimes, but i am (especially today) very scared of smart, scientific educated people without a heart, who only search the way up in their carrier...

ranfuchsranfuchs [Member]
04/03/08 @ 00:10

Isn't it gross generalisation?

Many scientists don’t work on living things; many don’t deal with weapons; most scientists don’t make half the money that a businessman, and accountant, or a lawyer makes. I know many scientists, none is rich. Very few scientists are good at making money.

I know wonderful scientists, I know horrible scientists, I know wonderful pseudo scientist, I know some horrible ones. The only difference I have found, that true scientists have much more open mind than the average person, and they are willing to find themselves wrong. Other than that, they are just like anyone else, at least that is what I find.

tylluanpenrytylluanpenry pro
04/03/08 @ 17:06

My own feeling is that much of what passes as 'paranormal' will one day be explained by science. I don't have a problem with that. I really wish there was more of a pulling together attitude rather than 'us and them.'

My own experience of people who could be called scientists is that they don't have open minds - but that could just be that we have met completely different types of scientist (and that in turn would just go to show that we can't generalise).

ranfuchsranfuchs [Member]
04/03/08 @ 20:57

many artists don't have creative minds either. What is a true artist? What makes a real scientist?

tylluanpenrytylluanpenry pro
04/03/08 @ 21:45

I never claimed artists or scientists for that matter had creative minds. I was merely remarking in my own experience that most of the people I have known who would describe themselves as scientists, have not had open minds.

As for how to define artists and scientists - maybe the terms should be self defining?

ranfuchsranfuchs [Member]
05/03/08 @ 10:22

I love it. I am an artist. Yey

Leave a comment :

Your email address will not be displayed on this site.
Your URL will be displayed.
Allowed XHTML tags: <!, p, ul, ol, li, dl, dt, dd, address, blockquote, ins, del, a, span, bdo, br, em, strong, dfn, code, samp, kdb, var, cite, abbr, acronym, q, sub, sup, tt, i, b, big, small, img>
URLs, email, AIM and ICQs will be converted automatically.
Options:
 
(Line breaks become <br />)
(Set cookies for name, email & url)
Validation code:
Please enter the above code here:
For protection from spambots (case-sensitive).

Recent Posts

  1. A question about failure
    by ranfuchs on 05/07/2008
  2. Lessons of life (2)
    by ranfuchs on 05/07/2008
  3. I wish I were ....
    by ranfuchs on 28/06/2008
  4. New type of BCUK spam
    by ranfuchs on 24/06/2008
  5. the good old days
    by ranfuchs on 21/06/2008
  6. Let's get serious
    by ranfuchs on 21/06/2008
  7. Who is smarter
    by ranfuchs on 21/06/2008
  8. Not for internal use
    by ranfuchs on 21/06/2008
  9. Quotations from the honest guru
    by ranfuchs on 21/06/2008
  10. All you needed to know about lawyers
    by ranfuchs on 15/06/2008

Footer

The content of this website belongs to a private person, blog.co.uk is not responsible for the content of this website.