General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhat pseudoscience is and is not.
Since we seem to have confusion on what pseudoscience (woo) actually means.
Pseudoscience is any explanation for natural phenomenon that appears to be scientific on its face, but doesn't actually follow any valid scientific method.
So what is the scientific method? It's a process which seeks to explain observed natural phenomena. Observations about the natural world are made, then hypotheses are formed based on the information acquired about the phenomenon. The hypotheses are used to not only explain already-occurred phenomena, but to explain how they may occur in the future.
Once hypotheses are formed, they are subjected to the observer's peers. Independent replication of the original studies are performed, and at the same time, those peers attempt to find any scenario or condition where a hypothesis may not be sufficient to explain the phenomenon--this is called falsifiability, or, in computer science parlance, bug-testing.
Pseudoscience doesn't follow the above method, through one or several deviations. It makes claims about the natural world that cannot be tested through natural means, it seeks confirmation rather than falsification, or it cannot be replicated independently by the proponent's peers.
With that in mind, here's what pseudoscience is and is not.
Pseudoscience is:
-An explanation for an event that cannot be tested within the bounds of the natural world. Qi, supernatural deities, and "humors" are prime examples. Their definitions put them outside the realm of methodological naturalism, which makes them untestable by a scientific method which uses such constraints.
-A hypothesis or explanation that either cannot or, in some cases, is not wiling to be subjected to independent study. Paranormal events fit this. If Person A claims they saw a ghost in their house during a full moon at midnight, then Persons B through Z should be reliably able to see a ghost in Person A's house during a full moon at midnight as well, or Person A should be able to replicate their encounter when prodded.
-A system which depends on confirmation rather than falsification to advance its ideas. This is almost universal, but it applies very well to alternative medicines. Proponents show only the cases where a patient benefited from treatment, while ignoring those who didn't.
Pseudoscience is not:
-A general epithet. Pseudoscience has a definition; it's not just to be used as a negatively-charged word to label an idea one doesn't like as bogus. Pharmaceuticals are not woo and testable effects of acupuncture are not woo.
-Conversely, it's also not a term that can be used to describe once-unsupported or persecuted ideas (notably before the Age of Enlightenment) in an attempt to make currently-"persecuted" or unsupported ideas seem more legitimate than they actually may be. Galileo's heliocentrism was never, ever "woo", and labeling it as such doesn't make qi real. Same with plate tectonics pre-seismology.
-Legitimate science. If it claims conspiracy against its ideas by a relevant boogeyman, uses terms like "scientifically-proven" (no such thing), or puts anecdotes or testimonials at the forefront, it's more than likely bogus.
People who push pseudoscience prey specifically on the scientifically-illiterate and those who hold a completely justified and rational distrust of Big Pharma. But Big Pharma's abuses and faults are a matter of greed and economics, cutting corners to put insufficiently-tested drugs on the market for the sake of profit. They are not the fault of evidence-based medicine. Toyota may have an unintended acceleration problem, but that's no reason to go visit your local magic carpet salesman.

KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)Materialism- the world view that the material world is all there is and that can be studied using scientific method.
Materialsim sees humans as physical machines and doesn't consider Consciousness as anything other than an epiphenomenon.
Not all Scientists are Materialists.
Not all scientific research using the scientific method disregards Consciousness.
The reactions of many DU'ers is basically the result of an old, outdated world view.
Years ago on DU, I had arguments with others who insisted that there is no such thing as a Philosophy of Science.
I am not going to argue any more.
But what I posted above is a basic truth of Science.
You can practice science as a Materialist or an Idealist.
You can see the Universe and Humans as a Machine or as an expression of Consciousness.
Materialists would have inert physical matter evolve upwards to eventually create an illusion of Consciousness.
Idealists would have Consciousness create the illusion of physical matter which evolves to reflect an ever greater measure of conscious thought.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)then why waste time and resources trying to do so?
If someone wants to believe in dualism, fine, but I don't see any reason to adopt such an explanation to something that can explained naturally.
roguevalley
(40,656 posts)says more about the poster than it does for the sciences in question and not in a good way.
Seriously.
longship
(40,416 posts)However, the scientific method can properly be termed methodological materialism, in that the methods of science presume natural materialistic causes. It's not that there are no non-materialist causes, only that science cannot study them.
Of course, that's just a statement about the methods and says nothing about reality.
About consciousness, there does not seem to be any evidence for the so-called ghost in the machine. I suppose one can claim something special there, but there certainly is no evidence that it is anything special or that there's any upward movement. And the neurological research looks pretty firm that consciousness is what a brain does. All animals probably do it, although that is difficult to study.
And also, these discussions inevitably collide head-on into the demarcation problem. What is science and pseudoscience? Treacherous territory there, except in the lounges of philosophy departments.
I don't know anybody who practices science that does not practice methodological materialism. But I am being a pedant about terminology here.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Richard Dawkins for one. And there's a fair number of others, too.
"It's not that there are no non-materialist causes, only that science cannot study them."
Well, mainstream science, anyway, or at least it's current form. (Do remember, though, that just 120 years ago, it was thought impossible that man could fly or could travel as high speeds without the risk of suffocation; just as consciousness being nothing more than a product of chemical reactions is today.)
longship
(40,416 posts)Whether he is also a philosophical materialist, I would doubt.
Yes, he sometimes says things without thinking them through, and he's a rather a bit of a rabble rouser when it comes to religion. But when he talks or writes about science, he is firmly in the column of a methodological materialist.
People misjudge Dawkins because they often have never read a word about what he has written about biology. That's how they get away with painting him as some kind of scoundrel, or something.
Well, mainstream science took us to the moon, and cured smallpox (and will soon rid the world of polio), and built the Large Hadron Collider, and built the Internet -- the WWW was invented at CERN, just like the LHC was -- that people use to post here.
I am a firm supporter of mainstream science. It delivers the goods, as Carl Sagan said.
The core of science is methodological naturalism (or materialism, if you wish). I'll stick with that.
Thanks for the reply.
Much obliged.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Science is a wondrous thing, I don't doubt that for one second. All I'm saying is that sometimes, the establishment can sometimes be hampered by personal biases; after all, they're only human. Regardless, I think you and I can both agree that whatever mistakes may occasionally be made, that science has still done an immeasurable amount of good for humanity, without a doubt.
cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)The presumption of natural materialistic causes is not neutral toward non-materialist causes. It is not merely a formal condition of debate, as with the presumption of innocence.
The presumption is a pretty flat statement that there are no non-material causes of effects in the material world. If there were, then science would be ridiculous to not study those very real material effects.
If there were such causes then science would seek to identify them. Scientists would still catalog what percentage of levitating rocks are due to prayers to the Flying Nun.
The reason science doesn't study prayer-levitated rocks is that they don't exist, not because they are outside the reach of science. If they existed then science would be all over them.
longship
(40,416 posts)The religious, and other non-materialists, make claims for physical interventions all the time. As Stenger points out, if that were happening science would be studying those very things. Just the fact that there are no such observations is indeed a strong indication that they do not exist. Of course, Stenger extends this to god does not exist -- at least not the theist god, which intervenes in the physical universe. That's putting it simply, but you get the idea.
BTW, in spite of what people claim, Stenger's the only prominent atheist I've heard actually claiming such a disproof of gods. That, in spite of what many people claim of other atheists.
I love discussing these topics.
Silent3
(15,909 posts)Just throw their hands and the air and say that actual particular treatments are "immaterial" (pun intended), that either taking pills or waving crystals are merely games we play to focus the mind, and that nothing really matters but what you believe?
Show me how you start from "universe as an expression of consciousness" as a basic assumption and work your way up to a system with a concrete methodology and falsifiable claims that produces even modestly reliable, repeatable results. Or is even asking that much just too damned materialist for you?
MattBaggins
(7,944 posts)AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)is in itself, a form of woo. At least the more liberal form, methodological materialism(as believed by Dr. Bill Nye, Dr. Neil Tyson, et al.), does try to allow for some open-mindedness, even if it sometimes remains a little too skeptical of scientific research that's "out of the box" as it were.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)What ARE you going on about?
Dawkins is a very good scientist. There is no special kind of "Dawkinsian" anything in science.... or anything else for that matter. Talk about woo.
RainDog
(28,784 posts)philosophy in the west (and east, too, for that matter) breaks down to two basic views: continental philosophy and empirical philosophy.
Plato is the lineage for the first and its adherents include junk "scientists" like Lacan - informed by another junk scientist - Freud, informed by Hegel, etc. Derrida is another. Plato asserted the existence of "ideal forms" and claimed that we have access only to the "shadows on the cave wall" rather than the source of light that creates such shadows. Platonism aligns with revelation/religion, post modernism - what Feynman called "cargo crate science. The pretense of science without the actual practice. A priori knowledge.
Empiricism is where the scientific method was created. The idea behind empiricism is that our understanding of the world is limited by our physical senses or the things we create to magnify those senses - and this includes things like higher math, physics and the theories that seek to explain physical phenomena outside of time. A posteriori knowledge. It's the basis of democracy through testing of beliefs that some forms of humans are more "ideal" than others.
History and philosophy of science is a well-established discipline and doesn't say, about science, what the initial post on this subject claims - and no one here ever claimed there was no philosophy of science. Ask Quine about that one.
Democracyinkind
(4,015 posts)Degree, much?
RainDog
(28,784 posts)Democracyinkind
(4,015 posts)I'd love to hear from you - by PM if you like. You know... where, when, how much.
There's a weird kind of kinship that I feel when reading posts like yours.
Like Derek Jarman made Wittgenstein say in his movie: "This is dangerous stuff. Get out while you still can."
There's something fundamentally appealing (to me) about people that can't seem to follow that advice...
RainDog
(28,784 posts)I'm not smart beyond my years - I've just been fortunate to know a lot of interesting people who have demonstrated to me how limited my knowledge truly is - and who made me interested in finding out about various things - within my limited ability to understand them. true.
I'm a hater of jargon - so, right there, I'm an enemy of academia in some respects. LOL.
Maybe my rebellious nature has served me well sometimes - others - not so much. Society has been my enemy as often as my friend, and maybe more so, depending on the society. One reason I have had so many male friends during my life is that I never fitted in with what I was supposed to think. It's been one of the joys of life.
I feel kinship with others who have similar frames of mind, tho, no doubt.
Democracyinkind
(4,015 posts)That would make me feel miserable You'd certainly deserve one. I was genuinely impressed.
Response to Democracyinkind (Reply #66)
RainDog This message was self-deleted by its author.
Democracyinkind
(4,015 posts)Last edited Mon Apr 21, 2014, 04:42 AM - Edit history (1)
...from people who have wasted at least as many years as I did with the Hydra of philosophy...
I'm very pleased to have "met" you and I'm looking forward to our DU paths crossing again.
Response to Democracyinkind (Reply #69)
RainDog This message was self-deleted by its author.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts).... just move on.
dorkulon
(5,116 posts)It's a strange way to think. Consciousness is not an 'illusion' because it is a physical phenomenon. It is in fact much more real than some intangible spirit-thing.
A scientist may not be a materialist. But science has found nothing else. You can see the universe as anything you want, but that means nothing regarding science or the scientific method.
MattBaggins
(7,944 posts)You get to espouse a world view where you can construct any system you feel like since it will never ever be testable.
The blind man in the dark room looking for a black cat that doesn't even exist.
cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)SidDithers
(44,298 posts)Sid
Silent3
(15,909 posts)...in the sense those words are normally used.
Science done badly due to greed, ineptitude, laziness, sloppiness, etc.
Pseudoscience is a different kind of beast, or at least a particular subset, of badly done science. It typically appeals to anecdote over evidence -- a very different thing than, for instance, fraudulently faking evidence. It much more often appeals to "there are things we just don't understand", trying to turn the unknown anything we want or need it to be, placing the burden of proof on anyone who dare challenge the claims of the promoters of the pseudoscience.
Finding out that some FDA-approved drug doesn't really work as it was expected to, or that it does what it was supposed to do but with bad side effects that weren't originally caught (or were unscrupulously hidden), does not make that drug "woo" in any way, shape or form like claiming you can channel "energy" into a crystal and program it to "heal" you. The bad drug is simply badly done science, and possibly fraud.
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)adj. of or relating to illness caused by medical examination or treatment.
In the United States an estimated 225,000 deaths per year have iatrogenic causes, with only heart disease and cancer causing more deaths.{1}
Silent3
(15,909 posts)Therefore crystals and chakra alignment and healing touch are better?
Also: Do you have statistics on how many deaths would occur in the absence of medical examination and treatment, or do you just assume that there's no net benefit to offset the downside?
Further: How much are these deaths do to badly done science, and how much are simply human failings totally unrelated to scientific merit or lack thereof: Accidental overdoses, incompetent diagnosis, fraud, abuse, etc.?
Even further: Do you assume that there aren't also plenty of deaths caused by "alternative" treatments?
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)Silent3
(15,909 posts)...then walked away, would you shout after me, "What was that about?", or just quietly accept that I was repeating something we all know, and think nothing more of it?
That "mainstream modern medicine still has faults" is about as plain and obvious and undisputed as "two plus two equals four". Say something as obvious as that if it carries great import, and you invite speculation over what you're going on about.
Notice that I did question what you meant, I did not insist upon you meaning any particular thing. Yes, I clearly have some default suspicions, but that not the same thing as making assumptions.
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)you may not have known previously. A word that has been absent from all the recent 'woo' discussions, that I've been trying to remember (as I said) for a few days, and I just remembered this afternoon. Like I said.
Archae
(46,988 posts)It took years, but Andrew Wakefield and his fraud was found out.
But in cases of pseudo-science, even after a proponent is found to be a fraud, they are still touted.
Good example: Eric Von Daniken.
He was exposed as a fraud decades ago.
But he is still touted as an "expert" on that "Ancient Aliens" bullshit TV show.
MattBaggins
(7,944 posts)You know what... people die.
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)It's just a fact. It's not a large percentage, but it does happen. See that wiki link above, and follow up the references if you'd like. eg http://www.avaresearch.com/ava-main-website/files/20100401061256.pdf?page=files/20100401061256.pdf
MattBaggins
(7,944 posts)truedelphi
(32,324 posts)I have low blood pressure. But often my doctors do not realize that, as they themselves make me nervous, as do other conditions of testing. (Sitting around in a paper nightie in a freezing cold room for half hour before getting tested.)
The exam itself and conditions surrounding it stresses me. My adrenals kick in, and the blood pressure test shows the doctor that my blood pressure is normal!
MattBaggins
(7,944 posts)Happens all the time and a good doctor and staff will keep that in mind.
Sgent
(5,858 posts)its also generally thought that it should be treated, because its unlikely you only suffer stress while at the doctor's office.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)Iatrogenic illnesses have little to do with 'science'. Many (probably most) simply have to do with the fact that when you go to a hospital or other healthcare facility, you're going to a place where a lot of other diseased individuals are going. Ie, areas of concentrated contamination. It's one reason why hospital stays have become far shorter over the years - the less you're exposed to the bacteria other people are bringing along, the less likely you are to pick up enough of a dose to make you sick. And you're generally doing it when you're sick or injured already, so your own defences are low. So if anything, they're proof that 'science works'. If you go to a place with a lot of nasty microbes, you're more likely to get sick.
Other iatrogenic issues arise from poorly-followed procedures, sloppiness, ignorance. Only in this last category are you going to find the sorts of issues I think you're getting at - people dying or having severe adverse reactions to drugs, because we don't understand quite enough about the drugs we give people to know for sure which patients are going to be in that tiny percentage who do not tolerate what have become 'common' medications.
So iatrogenic issues do nothing to 'disprove' science, or 'western medicine'.
MattBaggins
(7,944 posts)to a fault.
People do not understand the data behind that word. They think they are using a fancy word that discredits real medicine.
They don't know what different states or the Federal government use as a time frame for incubation of a bug in deciding whether the hospital was at fault or the patient was simply carrying something.
They don't know how to read the data on "pill" deaths and consider whether the person was going to die anyway no matter what medicines they were given. They don't realize that there is a serious risk versus reward decision that isn't considered when an inevitable death is declared "iatrogenic".
2pooped2pop
(5,420 posts)Silent3
(15,909 posts)Democracyinkind
(4,015 posts)Although this might be me actually practicing magical thinking right there.
LadyHawkAZ
(6,199 posts)mike_c
(36,455 posts)...or that they provoke word salad responses about "illusions of consciousness" and such.
eridani
(51,907 posts)Also that some explanations of natural phenomena that predate the scientific revolution may well be woo now, but it's not fair to apply the term retroactively. Even if they don't work as explanations now, they served as useful aids to memory then.
Willow bark tea was used for headaches long before aspirin was invented, and aspirin was in use for 100 years before salicylic acid and its derivatives were discovered to inhibit prostaglandin synthesis. If the old hedge witch said that willow bark tea was effective because the willow tree is sacred to St Sebastian, the patron saint of headaches, you don't have to believe her. If she said that the best specimens should be picked in the spring, there's a good chance she was right.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)I never knew of any connection to willow bark and St Sebastian before.
My heart is heavy whenever I think of the people of Afghanistan. I was priviliged to read this fabulous book written by some American or English man who had taken a tour of Afghanistan back in the fifties or sixties. And all the herbs those people grew. All the various species of plants they tended. Their land was so fragrant with spice and so abundant with foliage, and now it is barren and forsaken on account of the decades of war.
They "timed" everything in terms of the moon phases, with particular names for the moon in all the season. So a summer moon had a name, and then you knew if you should pick such and such an herb while that moon was waning or waxing, and all through the calendar there were specific instructions about how and when to plant an herb and how and when to pick it. How much everyone in Afghanistan seemed to love gardening and tending to nature.
eridani
(51,907 posts)Saints were often thought to be responsible for the healing properties of remedies. Do you have the name of that book? It sounds interesting. I've seen a few before and after pix from Afghanistan, and they were appalling. Ethnopharmacology is pretty interesting. Seems that most societies agree on the definition of a plant or animal species, with a few lumper vs. splitter disagreements. They differ a lot on higher order categories. Traditional societies tend to classify on usage rather than on evolutionary relationships.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)Last edited Sun Apr 20, 2014, 04:43 PM - Edit history (1)
Tony Tweedale, a scientist, researcher and commentator I respect greatly wrote: "About 40 years ago, a toxicity protocol that was called Good Laboratory Practices (or "GLP" came about and was mandated by the FDA. This happened after gross laboratory frauds by life science and petrochemical companies occurred. So GLP imposes simple record keeping chain of custody and test data standardization requirements on toxicology laboratories."
Most Americans remain in the dark about all the many games that are played by the American Corporate "safety" experts and investigators, even as they purport to follow the GLP..
One failure is the simple failure of the Huge Big Pocketed Organization, such as Monnato, to properly disclose the ingredients in a product. (In other words, the lies, and the damn lies that come from Industry-sponsored scientists.) America's EPA is the only agency in charge of licensing corporate products that does not now and probably never will in the future run a full gas spectrometric assessment of ingredients. If Monsanto says Product X contains only glyphosate and water, then the EPA says, "Thanks so much, Boys, for telling us that."
Then decades later the public comes to find out that formaldehyde is contained as well. (Although over the last fifteen years, it is possible that another aldehyde is in place of the formaldehyde.) One organic chemist I know had a slap to the forehead "Duh" moment when realizing that formaldehyde had been contained in the original formulation of Roundup: "After all, Carol, without an aldheyde of some kind, the glyphosate in RoundUp would remain in cake form, and the product would not be sprayable."
Also, it is well worth noting that one of the things other nations do in order to protect their citizenry's health is that their EPA-equivalent agency actually does run these gas spectrometric assessments, or other equivalent assessments of a product's actual ingredients. That way when the government is lied to, the government knows it! But we don't even do that.
Then the second thing that is done is this: we let the manufacturer devise the tests and run the tests that prove the safety of their product. Conflict of interest, anyone? yes our EPA lets the company itself do the testing of a product's safety and then provide those results to the EPA. Does anyone else here think maybe that means that the tests that are devised, the protocols etc - all of that can be devised to the Industry's liking so that Industry might devise a test that totally allows the product to escape being tested for the actual dangers.
Example: when glyphosate had to be tested for its safety, regarding RoundUp, the Monsanto scientists decided to have dogs drink water that had been substantially laced with glyphosate. The dogs all lived. But in reality, very few pet owners go out and buy RoundUp and liberally pour it into their dog's drinking water. The real test of the product's safety would have examined the dogs who had been sprayed with the product. Of course, Monsanto's scientists and advisers knew full well that the acids secreted in the stomach linings of the affected dogs would help the dogs survive the drinking water test. But had the dog's been sprayed, and examined after a suitable time, the lungs have no capacity to absorb the product and the results would have been different. (Especially true statement if Monsanto had been required to test all the ingredients in the product and not simply the glyphosate! But the POEA, which breaks down into formaldehyde and an aldehyde as well, as per the actual formulation)
But if the company had doen that, they probably would have jimmied with the time factor. For instance, when BP wanted to have a product used for oil dispersement on the troubled oil-drenched waters of the Gulf, the EPA had fish set up in a tank whe e the oil dissolving product was used. Then the fish were released one week alter, and all were reported to be in good health.
However one very ambitious EPA worker kept a tanks of fish for an additional two weeks, and within that time, all the fish died.
So which is woo? The ambitious EPA researcher who kept the fish longer, or the EPA workers who conformed by the protocols of the testing that was done in accordance with BP's wishes? (The product that dispersed oil was a product that BP was about to make a lot of money on!)
Additionally, the Big Corporate TakeOver of agencies like FDA and EPA mean that indie researcher are continually asked for their raw data before they have even finished their tests. But, of course, double standards apply. Big Corporate "scientists" are allowed as much time as (or as little time as) they want, they offset the risk to benefit factors by purging data that doesn't meet their requirement and numerous other manners and methods of jimmying the data exist. All that is accepted by the Media and by those agencies allied with Big Industry.
Tony Tweedale points out that additionally: "industry's toxicity studies have failed to modernize in over 100 years, still relying on the visible light microscope to see gross changes in slides of organ tissues. Many biological end points are ignored, and the standards on dosing and and test animals have not advance d nearly as far as those of independent researchers. Very high does are used to assure statistical significance, due to insensitivity of the assays, but such near poisoning levels may have little to do with what happens to organisms that are exposed to smaller, real world doses. Also, the dosing is missing the complexity of development, the cause of many diseases. Lastly, test animals are killed before o0ld age, masking most developing diseases. In short, the GLP manner of testing uses protocols that cannot find the toxicity."
BTW, Tweedale has given up working here in the all too often corrupted laboratories of American, corporate owned Laboratories. He now works in Europe.
On edit: here is all of Tweedale's abstract that I utilized in this reply. Sections I did not quote are even better than the ones I did. http://jech.bmj.com/content/65/6/475.extract
caraher
(6,321 posts)Both are clearly instances of working within a recognizable framework of science. Now there's a lot of science out there that's wrong or tainted by conflicts of interest or defective in countless ways. But neither "side" in a case like this is engaged in "woo." Indeed, the whole purpose of the OP is to point out that there is a distinction between wrong science and pesudoscience; the latter is not an umbrella term to be reduced to meaning "science I disagree with."
Science can be corrupt without being "woo" or pseudoscience. And that doesn't make it any better than pseudoscience - it just means it's bad in a different way.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)Then did you actually give some thought about what was written.
I mean, I point out that we have the only "Environmental Protection Agency" in the world that allows the manufacturer to reveal to them what the product's ingredients contain, and that other nations have EPA-styled agencies that actually do gas spectrometry tests themselves to determine ingredients, and you come away with what you wrote. That is all you have to say?
Seriously?
caraher
(6,321 posts)Is it scandalous that the there's no independent check on industry? Of course.
But I don't see a connection to pseudoscience. It's just old-fashioned corruption.
My response was based on the OP and the post I replied to; I admit to not having read all the posts upthread in detail.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)Let's say the department of measures and weights knowingly lets Big Corporations use a scale, that although marked with ounces and pounds, is mis-calibrated so that the "pounds" as measured by this corrupted scale are fifteen ounce pounds.
You may say it is corrupt, but if the system is that corrupt, then any 'scientific measurements" coming from that corrupted system is the same (to me, anyway) as "Woo."
I doubt we are going to agree. To me, and to many of my activist friends, once corruption has been institutionalized, than the system itself is woo.
nikto
(3,284 posts)Conservatism relies on pseudoscience.
TxDemChem
(1,918 posts)It's maddening what gets passed off as science. I have found more pseudoscience in my current everyday life than ever before. And I work with scientists who believe in this crap. This is refreshing.
Thank you, thank you, thank you!
bvar22
(39,909 posts)(post by bvar22)
Did you NOT say this? (In reference to the possibilities of Bee Sting Therapy)
That sounds dismissive.
At any rate, you have been forced to admit to the possibility of occasions where "Woo" is EFFECTIVE.
I STAND by original statement:
[font]Everything is "Woo", until it isn't.[/font]
THAT is the history of Science,
and thankfully, it is an ongoing relationship TODAY.
We have barely begun to Understand our universe.
Our Science is at the INFANT stage.
There is much more that we don't understand that what we have deciphered.
To close a mind to that which we don't yet understand
is to close a mind to the as yet undiscovered and untested possibilities of our Universe.
Sad, really.
I'm glad that the best and the brightest in our Scientific Community are STILL searching for "Woo",
and still testing it for the endless possibilities.
THEY will give us gifts in the future.
The others who are stuck in a very narrow understanding of Science's relationship to "Woo",
well..... there is a need for the test tube washers.
I support the Best & the Brightest Scientist that are NOW engaged in searching the Amazon
for native "Woo", and testing them for validity.
"Everything is "Woo"... until it isn't"---bvar22
You know, chewing Willow Bark still makes the headache go away.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)completely reverse it whenever he likes, without contradiction
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)You clearly did not read my posts whatsoever.
I did not write apitherapy off as pseudoscience. What happened is I didn't accept it because it hasn't been appropriately tested.
Pharmaceuticals aren't pseudoscience, and demanding sufficient tests be done before releasing a drug to market doesn't write it off as pseudoscience.
You didn't read my posts there, and you clearly didn't read it here. In fact, it's even more insulting here because I spelled out what is and isn't "woo" in the OP, and yet you're still using a bullshit definition of it you pulled out of thin air for your own ends.
And I also see you chose to ignore what I said about searching the Amazon for possible treatments, specifically the part where I didn't write them immediately off as pseudoscience.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)It is too bad you haven't taken the time to understand my position,
but, then again, the Best & the Brightest Scientists are chasing "Woo" in the Amazon today.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Stop misusing that term to give validity to unrelated nonsense.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)As I explained above, Science begins with "Woo",
and still has a relationship with "Woo" today.
Its always been that way,
and will always be that way.
The tales of the Primitive Peoples of the Amazon are certainly called "Woo" today.
I am not misusing that term.
YOU just can't come to grips with it.
MattBaggins
(7,944 posts)NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)At best, some fields began with protosciences like alchemy.
The woo lies in the explanation of how something supposedly works. For cosmology, creationism will always and forever be woo. The Big Bang and other earlier models are not. For medicine, humors will always be woo. Germ theory is not.
Galileo was never woo.
etherealtruth
(22,165 posts)
Democracyinkind
(4,015 posts)MattBaggins
(7,944 posts)No one has ever claimed that.
They do become woo when people claim they innervate imaginary energy fields, that they cure every known ailment, that ultra diluted doses are more powerful than regular strength, or when they make claims of efficacy with no testing whatsoever.
There are amazing useful compounds to be found in the world, but unfortunately, 99% of the crap on the shelves in the local "Mother Earth Healing Shop" is there solely to swindle people, and is in fact woo.
FarCenter
(19,429 posts)Medical doctors use scientific knowledge and practical experience to address a health problem of a patient. The also use drugs, devices, and other instruments that have been engineered for specific medical uses.
Characterizing a metabolic pathway leading to a disease is science. Testing compounds which will modify the pathway and ameliorate the disease without significant side effects for the patient is technology.
MattBaggins
(7,944 posts)"tests" of acupuncture are in fact woo.
The fact that is has both a placebo effect and helps to simply relieve a persons anxiety are taken way out of proportion by the CAM proponents. They read WAY too much into the results of studies.
Democracyinkind
(4,015 posts)"Toyota may have an unintended acceleration problem, but that's no reason to go visit your local magic carpet salesman."
Very clever - my sincere respect.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)Mayan end of the world scenario, Creationism, Conversion Therapy
uppityperson
(115,905 posts)NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)
Phlem
(6,323 posts)smoked weed for the first time in my early teens (13+). I suffer from PTSD from long term abuse starting around 3 to 4 for me. Trust me I remember the 1st punch in the face from my new stepfather and it didn't end till I moved out of the house around 19. The physical abuse stopped at 16 because I nearly fucking beat him to death. I managed to get myself off of him before I threw the 1st punch, then the mouth went into high gear. I was very bad however between Junior High and High School mentally. I was circling the drain mentally because of all the backwoods, upside down is right side up talk from my step father and my mother.
After my first smoke of home grown, years of abuse all of a sudden felt lighter and even went away for long periods.
If I knew what I know now and told someone back then that I smoked weed for my PTSD, it for sure would have been woo.
Today the army is testing it's efficacy on soldiers with PTSD.
Fuck anyone else who thinks they know better than me and what is "good" for me. Walk a day in my shoes. Woo?.....this shit needs to end. So fucking what, there are some people who think different, get over it. We've got bigger issues to deal with than watching "Dancing with the stars" or "where do we draw the line on what is and is not woo".
It's a distraction.
-p
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)We can dump three cores of nuclear reactors into the pacific and it will never hurt a thing except real close to shore.
&&&&&&&&&&
That there is the biggest gawd damn woo bullshit we have ever been fed.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)That's actually falls under the first point of what pseudoscience isn't.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Pseudoscience is any explanation for natural phenomenon that appears to be scientific on its face, but doesn't actually follow any valid scientific method.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Studies about radiation can be flawed, but that doesn't mean the study of radioactive decay is pseudoscience.
Actually, fuck this, I'm not letting you troll me this time. Have your fun. Just remember acorns, starfish, and heat plumes.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)People who push pseudoscience prey specifically on the scientifically-illiterate and those who hold a completely justified and rational distrust of Big Pahrma. But Big Pharma's abuses and faults are a matter of greed and economics, cutting corners to put insufficiently-tested drugs on the market for the sake of profit.
&&&&&&&&&&
Just replace "Big Pharma" with "Nukes at Fukushima" and anyone can see the point I make. Like this:
People who push pseudoscience prey specifically on the scientifically-illiterate and those who hold a completely justified and rational distrust of Nukes. But nukes abuses and faults are a matter of greed and economics, cutting corners to put insufficiently-tested power plants on the market for the sake of profit.
You say one thing and then talk something else. You get all these ideas from a book/wiki, but you are about as anti science method as anyone. Have a nice day.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)You do realize the rewording you did there not only negates your post that "nukes are safe" is woo, but in fact puts the anti-nuclear fringe in the category of predatory pseudoscience pushers that the paragraph actually addresses...right?
Oh God, wouldn't be a science thread without one of those spectacular fails.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Anything that even remotely conflicts with your book/wiki, you can't even begin to grok, like you did here.
"Nukes are safe" have been sold to an unsuspecting public, much like snake oil.
The science from Fukushima has proved that the pseudoscience sold by the nuke industry was not science, but snake oil.
You have repeatedly rejected the scientific method when it comes to explaining what is occurring in the Pacific. You are at fault of using the pseudoscience you just recently learned about thru wiki, is all I am pointing out to you. Of course you reject the science because it doesn't make you feel good. You are a trip!!
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Radiation isn't killing the starfish. The plutonium in the mussels is from a test site. A half a mSv increase in radiation isn't going to kill us all, or even remotely cause adverse effects. ENENews still isn't a credible source. And we fully understand how acorns work.
Seriously, I appreciate the laugh every now and then, but it's time to just give it a rest.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)I doubt it, all you do is c+p. You don't grok any of it.
You remind of the climate denialists from 10 years ago.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Please continue! Maybe tell us how we don't "grok" how acorns work.
Bonus points if you can cite ENENews.
Though I must subtract points for alleging plagiarism without any sort of evidence.