Maybe I'm Misunderstanding Woo... But... Wasn't There A Time When...

[NuclearDem]

189. Yes, you are misunderstanding woo.

Here's what pseudoscience is and isn't:

It doesn't adhere to the scientific method (observation, testing, independent testing, falsifiability).

It is a field that deals with the scientific method by claiming that those who want to apply it to their "studies" are part of a conspiracy or "don't want you to know the truth."

It makes claims of being "scientifically proven", which is not a term used in actual scientific fields.

It cannot be falsified or "disproven." Conversely, it cannot be confirmed or "proven" either.

Scientific fields utilize the scientific method, are subject to independent review and falsification (peers trying to find flaws in a hypothesis), don't make claims of their results or conclusions being "proven", are not infallible, and welcome critique among the rest of the scientific community.

Copernicus adhered to the scientific method. So did Freud, Jung, Renaissance surgeons, Darwin, Hawking, Sagan, Pasteur, Einstein, and every other major scientific mind of the last several centuries. They were never engaging in pseudoscience within their respective fields. In fact, it was the religious establishment at the time that pushed pseudoscience with geocentrism and creationism.

Scientific fields in their rudimentary and crude stages were never pseudoscience. They adhered to the scientific method. Ideas unpopular with authorities and religious groups were not "woo", but we're pushing back against woo.

No true scientific field is infallible. Conclusions are reached with the best methods and technology available, and the scientific community does its best to make damn sure of that through peer review. Big Pharma pushing bad medicine with bad studies and medical quackery are ethics and economics issues, not problems with the scientific method. The answer to quackery and poor ethics is tighter regulation and oversight, not pseudoscience.