At BigThink, an author tries to decide between science and pseudoscience

_{Denyse O'Leary

January 9, 2022

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Not easy because it depends on the judgment of “experts”. Here’s an excerpt from Princeton historian Michael D. Gordin’s book, On the Fringe: Where Science Meets Pseudoscience:

First, today’s science is adversarial. The way a scientist makes her reputation is by building on past findings, but if all she does is confirm what everyone already knew, her career stagnates. The pressures in scientific research are to do something new, and that usually means refuting a tenet of contemporary science. (We detect echoes of Karl Popper’s falsificationism.) Credit in science is allocated for priority (being first) and for being more correct than your competi- tors investigating the same questions. There will always be winners and losers. If the losers persist, they can and will get shunted to the fringe.
The second reason is that science is increasingly expensive. There are limited resources to go around, and there are always too many researchers chasing after coveted grants and high-profile publication opportunities. Within a climate of scarcity, adversarial norms necessarily generate both an incentive for winners to defend their gains and resentment from those who lost. Anyone who jeopardizes your research—say, by defending a fringe theory that contradicts it—may be seen as a threat. When nonmainstream doctrines pose a threat (real or imagined) to professional scientists, the term pseudoscience gets bandied about.
Michael D. Gordin, “What belongs in the “gray area” between science and pseudoscience?” at BigThink (December 27, 2021)

And then there is Big Science vs. COVID. Anyone care to discuss?

At which point, the defense rests.

Comments

And on top of Richard Owen’s rather mild rebuke of Darwin for failing to use inductive methodology, Adam Sedgwick was nothing less than scathing of Darwin for deserting, “after a start in that tram-road of all solid physical truth – the true method of induction, and started us in machinery as wild, I think, as Bishop Wilkins’s locomotive that was to sail with us to the moon.” Adam Sedgwick also called Darwin out for being misleading in exactly what form of reasoning he was using in his book. Specifically, Adam Sedgwick scolded Darwin that “Many of your wide conclusions are based upon assumptions which can neither be proved nor disproved, why then express them in the language and arrangement of philosophical induction?”
From Adam Sedgwick – 24 November 1859 - Cambridge My dear Darwin, Excerpt: I have read your book with more pain than pleasure. Parts of it I admired greatly, parts I laughed at till my sides were almost sore; other parts I read with absolute sorrow, because I think them utterly false and grievously mischievous. You have deserted – after a start in that tram-road of all solid physical truth – the true method of induction, and started us in machinery as wild, I think, as Bishop Wilkins’s locomotive that was to sail with us to the moon. Many of your wide conclusions are based upon assumptions which can neither be proved nor disproved, why then express them in the language and arrangement of philosophical induction?- As to your grand principle – natural selection – what is it but a secondary consequence of supposed, or known, primary facts.” Adam Sedgwick (1785-1873) – one of the founders of modern geology. – The Spectator, 1860 https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/DCP-LETT-2548.xml
And it was not as if Charles Darwin was ignorant of the fact that he had failed to follow Bacon’s inductive methodology, or that he was being misleading, even deceptive, in exactly what form of reasoning he was using, Charles Darwin himself, two years prior to the publication of his book, confessed to a friend that “What you hint at generally is very very true, that my work will be grievously hypothetical & large parts by no means worthy of being called inductive; my commonest error being probably induction from too few facts.”
Charles Darwin to Asa Gray – 29 November 1857 My dear Gray, ,,, What you hint at generally is very very true, that my work will be grievously hypothetical & large parts by no means worthy of being called inductive; my commonest error being probably induction from too few facts. https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/DCP-LETT-2176.xml
In short, when Darwin published his book, and in regards to inductive reasoning itself, Darwin did not do, or have, any original experimental research that would actually establish his theory as being scientifically true. i.e. Darwin had failed to use the scientific method! As Neil Thomas recently noted in his article entitled "Darwinian Theory: Science or Speculative Philosophy?", "Bottom line: Darwin did not have a single scrap of empirical fieldwork to document his conjectures."
Darwinian Theory: Science or Speculative Philosophy? - Neil Thomas - January 12, 2022 Excerpt: Bottom line: Darwin did not have a single scrap of empirical fieldwork to document his conjectures. As Howard Gruber once put it in his special study of Darwin’s notebooks, “Darwin’s greatest works represent interpretative compilations of facts gathered by others.”2 https://evolutionnews.org/2022/01/darwinian-theory-science-or-speculative-philosophy/
And over a century and a half later the situation still has not changed one iota. To this day, Darwinists still have no experimental research that would establish Darwin’s theory as being scientifically true. As Dr Richard Nelson also noted in his book Darwin, Then and Now, “After 150 years of research,,, the scientific evidence is clear: there are no “successive, slight” changes in the fossil record, embryology, molecular biology, or genetics to support Darwinism or neo-Darwinism.”
Darwin, Then and Now – by Dr. Richard William Nelson – Book Preview Excerpt: as a theology graduate from Christ’s College, Darwin set out on a mission to discover the natural laws of evolution with a passion. Darwin Then and Now reveals how the emerging nineteenth century philosophies influenced Darwin to eventually abandon the Scientific Method. Darwin conceded that The Origin of Species was just “one long argument from the beginning to the end”—not a scientific treatise. DARWIN, THEN AND NOW highlights Darwin’s top 15 contradictions in arguing for natural selection. Just two years before the publication of The Origin of Species, in writing to a friend, Darwin confided, “I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science.” With more than 300 quotations from Darwin, DARWIN, THEN AND NOW is an exposé on what Darwin actually said concerning his “point of view” on the origin of species. After 150 years of research with more than 700 references from scientists, DARWIN, THEN AND NOW chronicles how the scientific evidence is clear: there are no “successive, slight” changes in the fossil record, embryology, molecular biology, or genetics to support Darwinism or neo-Darwinism. Even the popular twentieth-century Central Dogma theoretical mechanism of evolution has been abandoned. Today, a cohesive mechanism of evolution and evidence of a Tree of Life continues to remain as elusive as Darwin infamous drawing – “I Think.” https://www.darwinthenandnow.com/book-preview/
In fact there are many lines of experimental evidence that, besides contradicting Darwin’s theory, directly falsify core presuppositions of Darwin’s theory. (And yet Darwinists, at least the ones I've dealt with, simply don't care that their theory has been falsified in its core presuppositions time and time again, and continue to dogmatically believe Darwinian evolution to be true anyway) Dr. Cornelius Hunter has evaluated 22 specific predictions that are fundamental to Darwin’s theory and has found that when those specific predictions were tested and evaluated against the experimental evidence then those fundamental predictions of Darwin’s theory were found to be false.
Darwin’s (failed) Predictions – Cornelius G. Hunter – 2015 This paper evaluates 22 fundamental predictions of evolutionary theory from a wide range of different categories. The paper begins with a brief introduction to the nature of scientific predictions, and typical concerns evolutionists raise against investigating predictions of evolution. The paper next presents the individual predictions in seven categories: early evolution, evolutionary causes, molecular evolution, common descent, evolutionary phylogenies, evolutionary pathways, and behavior. Finally the conclusion summarizes these various predictions, their implications for evolution’s capacity to explain phenomena, and how they bear on evolutionist’s claims about their theory. https://sites.google.com/site/darwinspredictions/home Why investigate evolution’s false predictions? Excerpt: It is not controversial that a great many predictions made by Darwin’s theory of evolution have been found to be false.,,, The predictions examined in this paper were selected according to several criteria. They cover a wide spectrum of evolutionary theory and are fundamental to the theory, reflecting major tenets of evolutionary thought. They were widely held by the consensus rather than reflecting one viewpoint of several competing viewpoints. Each prediction was a natural and fundamental expectation of the theory of evolution, and constituted mainstream evolutionary science. Furthermore, the selected predictions are not vague but rather are specific and can be objectively evaluated. They have been tested and evaluated and the outcome is not controversial or in question. And finally the predictions have implications for evolution’s (in)capacity to explain phenomena, as discussed in the conclusions. https://sites.google.com/site/darwinspredictions/why-investigate-evolution-s-false-predictions
And here is my own list of falsifications of core presuppositions of Darwin’s theory which Darwinists simply ignore, (a list which I have compiled after years of debating Darwinists):
Darwinism vs. Falsification – list Excerpt: 1. Darwin’s theory holds mutations to the genome to be random. The vast majority of mutations to the genome are not random but are now found to be ‘directed’. 2. Darwin’s theory holds that Natural Selection is the ‘designer substitute’ that produces the ‘appearance’ and/or illusion of design. Natural Selection, especially for multicellular organisms, is found to grossly inadequate as the ‘designer substitute. 3. Darwin’s theory holds that mutations to DNA will eventually change the basic biological form of any given species into a new form of a brand new species. Yet, biological form is found to be irreducible to mutations to DNA, nor is biological form reducible to any other material particulars in biology one may wish to invoke. 4. Darwin’s theory holds there to be an extremely beneficial and flexible mutation rate for DNA which was ultimately responsible for all the diversity and complexity of life we see on earth. The mutation rate to DNA is overwhelmingly detrimental. Detrimental to such a point that it is seriously questioned whether there are any truly beneficial, information building, mutations whatsoever. 5. Charles Darwin himself held that the gradual unfolding of life would (someday) be self-evident in the fossil record. Yet, from the Cambrian Explosion onward, the fossil record is consistently characterized by the sudden appearance of a group/kind in the fossil record(disparity), then rapid diversity within the group/kind, and then long term stability and even deterioration of variety within the overall group/kind, and within the specific species of the kind, over long periods of time. Of the few dozen or so fossils claimed as transitional, not one is uncontested as a true example of transition between major animal forms out of millions of collected fossils. Moreover, Fossils are found in the “wrong place” all the time (either too early, or too late). 6. Darwin’s theory, due to the randomness postulate, holds that patterns will not repeat themselves in supposedly widely divergent species. Yet thousands of instances of what is ironically called ‘convergent evolution’, on both the morphological and genetic level, falsifies the Darwinian belief that patterns will not repeat themselves in widely divergent species. 7. Charles Darwin himself stated that “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” Yet as Doug Axe pointed out, “Basically every gene and every new protein fold, there is nothing of significance that we can show that can be had in that gradualistic way. It’s all a mirage. None of it happens that way.” 8. Charles Darwin himself stated that “If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection.” Yet as Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig pointed out, “in thousands of plant species often entirely new organs have been formed for the exclusive good of more than 132,930 other species, these ‘ugly facts’ have annihilated Darwin’s theory as well as modern versions of it.” 9. Charles Darwin himself stated that, ““The impossibility of conceiving that this grand and wondrous universe, with our conscious selves, arose through chance, seems to me the chief argument for the existence of God. Yet ‘our conscious selves’ are certainly not explainable by ‘chance’ (nor is consciousness explainable by any possible reductive materialistic explanation in general), i.e. ‘the hard problem of consciousness’. 10. Besides the mathematics of probability consistently showing that Darwinian evolution is impossible, the mathematics of population genetics itself has now shown Darwinian evolution to be impossible. Moreover, ‘immaterial’ mathematics itself, which undergirds all of science, engineering and technology, is held by most mathematicians to exist in some timeless, unchanging, immaterial, Platonic realm. Yet, the reductive materialism that Darwinian theory is based upon denies the existence of the immaterial realm that mathematics exists in. i.e. Darwinian evolution actually denies the objective reality of the one thing, i.e. mathematics, that it most needs in order to be considered scientific in the first place! 11. Donald Hoffman has, via population genetics, shown that if Darwin’s materialistic theory were true then all our observations of reality would be illusory. Yet the scientific method itself is based on reliable observation. Moreover, Quantum Mechanics itself has now shown that conscious observation must come before material reality, i.e. falsification of ‘realism’ proves that our conscious observations are reliable!. 12. The reductive materialism that undergirds Darwinian thought holds that immaterial information is merely ’emergent’ from a material basis. Yet immaterial Information, via experimental realization of the “Maxwell’s Demon” thought experiment, is now found to be its own distinctive physical entity that, although it can interact in a ‘top down’ manner with matter and energy, is separate from matter and energy. 13. Darwinists hold that Darwin’s theory is true. Yet ‘Truth’ itself is an abstract property of an immaterial mind that is irreducible to the reductive materialistic explanations of Darwinian evolution. i.e. Assuming reductive materialism and/or Naturalism as the starting philosophical position of science actually precludes ‘the truth’ from ever being reached by science! 14. Darwinists, due to their underlying naturalistic philosophy, insist that teleology (i.e. goal directed purpose) does not exist. Yet it is impossible for Biologists to do biological research without constantly invoking words that directly imply teleology. i.e. The very words that Biologists themselves use when they are doing their research falsifies Darwinian evolution. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1I6fT6ATY700Bsx2-JSFqL6l-rzXpMcZcZKZfYRS45h4/edit
bornagain77_{January 13, 2022
January
01
Jan
13
13
2022
06:24 AM
6
06
24
AM
PDT}

Differentiating science from pseudoscience? Afters years of debating Darwinists, and Atheistic Naturalists in general, I have come to the firm conclusion that science, at least how they practice it, is broken, and they are the ones who have broken it. And the way that Darwinists, and Atheistic Naturalists in general, have broken science is that they have, basically, turned the inductive methodology of Francis Bacon on its head. Which is to say that they have, basically, turned the entire scientific method itself on its head. But first, to lay out the necessary, essential, Judeo-Christian presuppositions that lay behind the founding of modern science
“Science in its modern form arose in the Western civilization alone, among all the cultures of the world”, because only the Christian West possessed the necessary “intellectual presuppositions”. – Ian Barbour Presupposition 1: The contingency of nature “In 1277, the Etienne Tempier, the bishop of Paris, writing with support of Pope John XXI, condemned “necessarian theology” and 219 separate theses influenced by Greek philosophy about what God could and couldn’t do.”,, “The order in nature could have been otherwise (therefore) the job of the natural philosopher, (i.e. scientist), was not to ask what God must have done but (to ask) what God actually did.” Presupposition 2: The intelligibility of nature “Modern science was inspired by the conviction that the universe is the product of a rational mind who designed it to be understood and who (also) designed the human mind to understand it.” (i.e. human exceptionalism), “God created us in his own image so that we could share in his own thoughts” – Johannes Kepler Presupposition 3: Human Fallibility “Humans are vulnerable to self-deception, flights of fancy, and jumping to conclusions.”, (i.e. original sin), Scientists must therefore employ “systematic experimental methods.” – Stephen Meyer on Intelligent Design and The Return of the God Hypothesis – Hoover Institution https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_8PPO-cAlA
Although the Judeo-Christian presuppositions of "The contingency of nature", and "The intelligibility of nature", are obviously necessary, even essential, presuppositions for the practice of modern science, (and although atheists illegitimately assume those Christian presuppositions without any philosophical basis within their naturalistic worldview for doing so, (Paul Davies, Nancy Pearcey)), I hold that the inductive methodology which Francis Bacon introduced, (via his Christian presupposition of man's fallen nature, i.e. original sin, as a check and balance against "self-deception, flights of fancy, and jumping to conclusions”), is the main place where atheistic naturalists have, basically, turned the entire scientific method itself on its head, i.e. it is where they have 'broken science'. Darwinists simply ignore inductive reasoning, especially when it conflicts with their a-priori assumption of atheistic naturalism. You see the 'bottom up' inductive reasoning which Francis Bacon championed, (where the premises of your argument are held provisionally, i.e. where one’s assumptions about the universe are held to be falsifiable by experimentation), is, practically speaking, a completely different form of reasoning than the ‘top down’ deductive reasoning of the ancient Greeks in which they “pronounced on how the world should behave, with insufficient attention to how the world in fact did behave.”
“The emergence of modern science was associated with a disdain for the rationalism of Greek philosophers who pronounced on how the world should behave, with insufficient attention to how the world in fact did behave.” – Henry F. Schaefer III – Making Sense of Faith and Science – 23:30 minute mark https://youtu.be/C7Py_qeFW4s?t=1415 Deductive vs. Inductive reasoning – top-down vs. bottom-up – graph https://i2.wp.com/images.slideplayer.com/28/9351128/slides/slide_2.jpg Inductive reasoning Excerpt: Inductive reasoning is a method of reasoning in which the premises are viewed as supplying some evidence, but not full assurance, of the truth of the conclusion.[1] It is also described as a method where one’s experiences and observations, including what are learned from others, are synthesized to come up with a general truth.[2] Many dictionaries define inductive reasoning as the derivation of general principles from specific observations (arguing from specific to general), although there are many inductive arguments that do not have that form.[3] Inductive reasoning is distinct from deductive reasoning. While, if the premises are correct, the conclusion of a deductive argument is certain, the truth of the conclusion of an inductive argument is probable, based upon the evidence given.[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning
And the 'bottom up' inductive methodology of Francis Bacon, (a devout Christian), that lies at the basis of the scientific method has indeed been very, very, fruitful for man in gaining accurate knowledge of the universe in that repeated experiments lead to more “exacting, and illuminating”, conclusions than is possible with the quote-unquote, “educated guesses” that followed from Aristotle’s deductive form of reasoning.
Francis Bacon, 1561–1626 Excerpt: Called the father of empiricism, Sir Francis Bacon is credited with establishing and popularizing the “scientific method” of inquiry into natural phenomena. In stark contrast to deductive reasoning, which had dominated science since the days of Aristotle, Bacon introduced inductive methodology—testing and refining hypotheses by observing, measuring, and experimenting. An Aristotelian might logically deduce that water is necessary for life by arguing that its lack causes death. Aren’t deserts arid and lifeless? But that is really an educated guess, limited to the subjective experience of the observer and not based on any objective facts gathered about the observed. A Baconian would want to test the hypothesis by experimenting with water deprivation under different conditions, using various forms of life. The results of those experiments would lead to more exacting, and illuminating, conclusions about life’s dependency on water. https://lib-dbserver.princeton.edu/visual_materials/maps/websites/thematic-maps/bacon/bacon.html
And again, atheistic naturalists, especially Darwinian atheists, have, basically, turned science itself on its head, i.e. have 'broken science', by forsaking the 'bottom up' inductive methodology of Francis Bacon. As Dr. Richard Nelson, in his book Darwin, Then and Now, noted, Charles Darwin, in his book ‘Origin of Species’, “selected the deductive method of reasoning – and abandoned the inductive method of reasoning.”
Darwin Dilemma by Dr. Richard William Nelson The theory of biological evolution Charles Darwin argued for in the Origin of Species now presents a litany of problems for twenty-first-century evolution scientists – known as the Darwin Dilemma. The dilemma stems from the method of reasoning Darwin selected. Dilemma Origins: For investigating the laws of nature, Charles Darwin selected the deductive method of reasoning – and abandoned the inductive method of reasoning. The method of reasoning is critical when investigating the secrets of nature. Unlike deductive reasoning, inductive reasoning minimizes the dogma and bias of the investigator. Inductive reasoning is the defining element of what has become known as the scientific method. Details of Darwin’s reasoning method are discussed in Darwin, Then and Now. https://www.darwinthenandnow.com/darwin-dilemma/
Likewise Richard Owen, in a review of Charles Darwin’s book shortly after it was published, had found that Charles Darwin, as far as inductive methodology itself was concerned, had failed to produce “inductive original research which might issue in throwing light on ‘that mystery of mysteries.’.
Darwin on the Origin of Species (1860) Reviewed by Richard Owen for Edinburg Review Excerpt: The scientific world has looked forward with great interest to the facts which Mr. Darwin might finally deem adequate to the support of his theory on this supreme question in biology, and to the course of <b<inductive original research which might issue in throwing light on 'that mystery of mysteries.' But having now cited the chief, if not the whole, of the original observations adduced by its author in the volume now before us, our disappointment may be conceived. http://www.victorianweb.org/science/science_texts/owen_review_of_origin.html
In other words, Darwin had failed to produce any original experimental research that might support his theory for the “Origin of Species”.bornagain77_{January 13, 2022
January
01
Jan
13
13
2022
06:23 AM
6
06
23
AM
PDT}

After almost a week I am still banned from commenting on a thread: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/if-math-is-a-reality-atheism-is-dead/ I have tried many, many times from different computer and having logged out. Someone has chosen to lock me out of that thread. That is clear. There really is no denying it anymore. The thing the site moderators should ask is: who has chosen to do this and why? Is that the way you want the site run? Do you want me to be respectful and reply to those who asked me questions on another thread because I've been blocked on the thread the questions were asked? Do you really want people to ask someone like me a question and then not get a reply because someone has thought to block? Censorship from the people who claim they are censored is hypocritical.JVL_{January 12, 2022
January
01
Jan
12
12
2022
10:05 AM
10
10
05
AM
PDT}

Poll: what do you hope to gain by your participation on this site? Thanks --Ramram_{January 11, 2022
January
01
Jan
11
11
2022
12:07 AM
12
12
07
AM
PDT}

Andrew, yes you are right - marketed "scientific" claims are so often BS. What I've noticed though, rummaging around this site and other forums, is a tendency to disparage "mainstream science" as though it's the source of the problem rather than an (imperfect) bulwark against a completely open market of ideas that are truly, ridiculously wrong. I'm mainly talking about "alternative medicine", another term for medicine that has simply never been tested for safety and efficacy. And it's not a political thing at all - we've got pseudo- and anti-scientific nonsense coming from all over the political spectrum.dogdoc_{January 10, 2022
January
01
Jan
10
10
2022
02:14 PM
2
02
14
PM
PDT}

Dogdoc, I agree with you. I just want to emphasize that something presented as checked by scientific practices and institutions may not be scientifically checked, just stamped to make it look good. Andrewasauber_{January 10, 2022
January
01
Jan
10
10
2022
01:01 PM
1
01
01
PM
PDT}

Andrew, the point is that scientific conclusions are wrong less often. Leaping to conclusions that are not checked by scientific practices and institutions is like playing tennis without a net.dogdoc_{January 10, 2022
January
01
Jan
10
10
2022
12:47 PM
12
12
47
PM
PDT}

"In fact, the only thing that is less reliable than scientific conclusions are… non-scientific conclusions." Dogdoc, A conclusion leapt to by a Scientist that is wrong is not reliable. <-----period Andrewasauber_{January 10, 2022
January
01
Jan
10
10
2022
12:18 PM
12
12
18
PM
PDT}

In order to advance their careers, scientists do all sorts of things - leave out disconfirming data, explore multiple hypotheses with the same data, even falsify experimental results! In fact, the only thing that is less reliable than scientific conclusions are... non-scientific conclusions. We need to always work to make science better, but don't forget that science is simply a set of rules, practices, and institutions intended to help keep people from publishing poorly supported results or outright cheating. The fact that it isn't 100% effective doesn't mean it doesn't help, obviously, just as the fact that vaccines aren't 100% safe or effective doesn't mean they don't help. Without academic and professional accreditations, peer review, replication, and so on, the search for knowledge would be a free-for-all, immensely more corrupt.dogdoc_{January 10, 2022
January
01
Jan
10
10
2022
11:17 AM
11
11
17
AM
PDT}

when Big Money/Big Power wants more of the same party line Climate Change or Covid marketing
Actually clearer in heart research and the ignorance of findings.jerry_{January 10, 2022
January
01
Jan
10
10
2022
07:43 AM
7
07
43
AM
PDT}

"The pressures in scientific research are to do something new" This may be true(in some cases), but when Big Money/Big Power wants more of the same party line Climate Change or Covid marketing with scientific trappings, guess what happens? Andrewasauber_{January 10, 2022
January
01
Jan
10
10
2022
06:30 AM
6
06
30
AM
PDT}

And then there is Big Science vs. COVID. Anyone care to discuss?
Denyse, you should read “The Clot Thickens” C19 is nothing compared to the heart/LDL fiasco. When there is $1 trillion dollars in statins and $1 trillion in low fat foods, you better believe the truth will not get out. How many know that women’s risk of heart disease goes down as their blood cholesterol goes up? Or that the LDL molecules could have nothing to do with heart disease? All rejected by the health experts because of the money in statins and low fat foods. So the pressure to do something new can only exists if there is not money involved. C19 vaccines are currently chump change compared to this but they are trying.jerry_{January 9, 2022
January
01
Jan
9
09
2022
08:37 AM
8
08
37
AM
PDT}

This is broadly valid but gets the history wrong. Academia has always been orthodox. Federal funding and tenure have made the orthodoxy vastly more rigid and impenetrable, but there was never any premium on counter-orthodox results. The dictionary definition of pseudoscience is actually valid and permanent. If the observation or experimental result is "fragile", depending on a highly specific and contrived setup, or if the observation is only seen by one scientist and not by others using the same methods, it's dubious. The big powers ignore the dictionary definition and use the word to destroy what they don't like right now. Most officially labeled "pseudosciences" have turned out to be valid after the orthodox generation died. We value the counter-orthodox in retrospect.polistra_{January 9, 2022
January
01
Jan
9
09
2022
08:23 AM
8
08
23
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply