What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
Satellite Radio view!
bestbuygiftadvice.com - The Best Buy(R) Twelpforce(TM) Carolers sing of Satellite Radio and all its glory.
139 Comments
- BigManOnCampus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+25That's an excellent summary, worth it for anyone to read.
I would only add that with a media that is looking for the next big "Fear" to sell on-air, and weak politicians looking for that psuedofear to ride into office, seeing the difference between science and psuedoscience is becoming more and more difficult for the layperson. The whole misuse of science to sell agendas is the biggest threat facing mankind today. Forget terrorism, it's blown out of proportion (not that we shouldn't kill the a-holes who are terrorists, mind you). - HunterTV, on 10/12/2007, -2/+18Carl Sagan wrote a book about it, called The Demon-Haunted World. Good read for anyone in any science-related capacity or major. I read while I was a psychology major and it gave me a lot of tools to think critically about research, causality, etc.
- Andronicus1717, on 10/12/2007, -5/+21Textbooks aren't revised year after year due to new insight, they are revised so students are required to buy the latest version, thus negating any resale value for older versions and increasing profit margins. Education is an economy just like any other.
- inkyblue2, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15"all the socialists (Democrats)"
do i even have to point out how stupid this is? please, stop being stupid in public. it's embarrassing. - happyfappy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14Karl Popper got it right.
It's about one thing and one thing only: FALSIFIABILITY.
If it's falsifiable, it's science. If not, it's pseudoscience. - iSEPIC, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13He didn't say anything about the "bible" - get off your high-horse.
- sgglynn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11Welcome to 90% of articles on digg..... I read this article for a bio class I had last year. This one is also similar but more direct ways to spot bogus science:
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/signs.html - Naidim, on 10/12/2007, -26/+36By this definition, Global Warming is pseudoscience. Who knew?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Matthew, if you insist on using strawman arguments, please don't bother commenting.
- johnnick, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Physicist Bob Park wrote the linked article a few years ago to provide a guide to how to identify "junk science." http://chronicle.com/free/v49/i21/21b02001.htm
- Netwatcher, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9@matthewmok
The nut cases that believe that the world is only 6,000 years old got that number from adding up the ages of everyone listed in Genesis.
Sad but true. - CaseyUCF, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Scientists have been wrong in the past, therefore I still believe! Might want to look into that argument a little more.
- SpaceMonkeyZero, on 10/12/2007, -5/+14It applies to 9/11 truthers and other conspiracy nuts.
- reventlov, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9@matthewmok
Care to explain your reasoning, or are you just an intelligent design pseudo-science fanboy? I will agree that evolution is such a tricky thing to prove given that it is largely unobservable in our brief lifetimes and fossil records are spotty at best (though continuously being improved upon), but I don't see anything in this article to suggest that it is even vaguely dishonest or at all a pseudo-science. - darkstar949, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Depends on the subject matter - if you are talking about undergraduate math books then most of the revisions are just minor corrections to errors in the text and should just be released as something on a website somewhere. However, some of the more advanced courses that deal in still developing subject errors (for example, computer networking or computer graphics) do have enough research being done to justify a new revision every few years.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -8/+16Oh please. Global Warming/Climate change is a hypothesis that is based on real science. The conclusions from those scientific findings is contentious but it is disingenuous to the debate to label a real hypothesis a pseudoscience.
- Otto, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7@matthewmok: No. You are wrong. Evolution makes no such claims about the origins of life. If you think it does, then you do not understand evolution. The Origin of Life question is a different question entirely, which Evolution does not claim to answer.
You also misunderstand the implications of the Law of Biogenesis, which is common among creationists. That law does not mean what you think it means, and it does not imply creationism. Such an argument is in the category of fallacy known as the "false dilemma". - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10What the hell are you talking about matthew? What does biogenesis have to do with evolution? You DO know that evolution has NOTHING to do with the origin of life right?
Also, have you never heard of abiogenesis?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis - ethicalhacker, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Definitive proof that global warming is real/fake. Finally. I'm glad we put that one to rest. Seriously though, it was a great article.
- jerbaker, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11I welcome any global warming detractors to post the reasoning behind their claim that the theory of global warming is based upon pseudoscience. Global warming detractors match several of the factors, including:
1) Pseudoscience displays an indifference to facts.
EXAMPLE: It doesn't matter that the overall record of global average temperatures continue to increase at an alarming rate, some opponents of global warming will dig up anomalies like Greenland's averages to claim that the whole theory is debunked.
EXAMPLE: Despite the fact that atmospheric CO2 is almost perfectly correlated with the growth of fossil fuel consumption by humans some opponents of global warming claim that it's from volcanoes or other natural phenomena.
EXAMPLE: Even though it is a known fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas (hence Venus' climate), some global warming detractors will claim there is a dispute or controversy about the role of CO2 as a greenhouse gas.
EXAMPLE: In the 90's more so than now, global warming detractors used to claim that there was no warming being observed at all despite the plain scientific fact that it was warming.
2) Pseudoscience argues from ignorance, an elementary fallacy.
EXAMPLE: Opponents of global warming claim that since science can't prove that the current warming trend is anthropogenic then it probably isn't (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence).
3) Pseudoscience often contradicts itself, even in its own terms.
EXAMPLE: Taken as a whole, the opposition to the theory of global warming has expressed the following beliefs:
a) Carbon dioxide is not a greenhouse gas
b) There is no global warming.
b) Volcanoes and natural phenomena release more carbon dioxide than humans, thus explaining the current warming period (now it is a greenhouse
gas).
c) The Sun is responsible for the currently observed warming (now there is warming).
d) Global warming is hysterical fear-mongering by radical environmentalists
e) Nuclear power is the answer to global warming (the same global warming that isn't happening).
No need to go on and on. - Malcx, on 10/12/2007, -22/+28Re-read the article replacing "Pseudoscience" with "Religion" - it still reads perfectly...
e.g.
Pseudoscience often contradicts itself, even in its own terms.
Pseudoscience deliberately creates mystery where none exists, by omitting crucial information and important details.
Pseudoscience argues from ignorance, an elementary fallacy. - KevMo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7You are obviously not a Christian, assuming from your screen name. Why are you posing like you are? Your attempts to increase hate towards Christians by your comments are probably the thing you dislike most about Christians and yet you do it yourself. Shame.
- happyfappy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6BTW, here's Popper's paper on science vs. pseudoscience:
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/popper_falsification.html - alky, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Well, it applies to debates about global warming among the public and the media. The science of global warming would be measuring average global temperature and various other things to see if, indeed, the planet is actually warming up and accepting/rejecting the claim based on that. If you want to learn about it, don't read newspapers, watch the news or listen to your office coworkers; read well-known scientific journals.
- glucoseboy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Pseudoscientific "explanations" tend to be by scenario.
That is, we are told a story, but nothing else; we have no description of any possible physical process. For instance, Immanuel Velikovsky (1895-1979) claimed that another planet passing near the earth caused the earth's spin axis to flip upside down. This is all he said. He gave no mechanisms.
This point is sometimes lost during the debate against intelligent design. According to ID, some things are so complex that they have to be designed by a higher intelligence/supreme being.
So, let's take this assertion further: How did this higher intelligence/supreme being design and create us? By what mechanism did the design of our eyes get put into our heads so we could see? ID is very quiet on the mechanism of how the "designer" did their designing.
The problem with ID and by extension all of creation science (and the early "science" that is science through exposition instead of experimentation) is that you can't do anything with it. It's a dead end. You can't do anything with it. You just accept it and you're done.
True science allows theories to be tested, new theories to be based on another to lead to new, unexpected understandings. Like the work on understanding cellular signaling mechanisms that allow for new cancer-fighting drugs that work by inhibiting angiogenesis, the process by which new blood vessels develop and carry vital nutrients to a tumor. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Pragmatically speaking, evolution is a fact.
- Nougat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@republicker (#6513617)
So I should believe that link, which says:
"So-called "alternative medicine" is actually the health choice of planet earth." - The health choice of planet earth? What?
"The future of medicine is right in front of us - it isn't in pharmaceuticals - it is in nutrition, body cleansing, prevention, oxygen therapies and energy medicine - all of which are constantly targeted by the sleaziest of the "Quackbuster" soldiers." - Oxygen therapies? Body cleansing? Energy medicine?
"The American public, in a consumer-driven movement, is rejecting, with laughter and ridicule, Barrett and company's ludicrous assertions - hence the term "Quackpot" is now used, commonly, to describe the self-named "Quackbusters."" - I have never heard the term "quackpot" until I just read it there.
"The American public is just now realizing two things (a) that a good many of those "alternative" things being blocked, and suppressed, have been around for a long while - but not available to them because of the conspiracy, and (b) that the system to find and put new things in place is corrupt - and works against Americans. Every "cure" since polio has been suppressed, and the proponents of those cures, reviled by the "Quackbuster Conspirators."" - THE CONSPIRACY!!
Sheesh. - NanoStuff, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Staying away from New Scientist in favor of the entirely superior PhysOrg would be a good place to start.
- buzzdoit, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8Read the article again, except this time think "fundamentalist religion" instead of of psychics.
I've seen some amusing "science" that proves the earth was created 6,000 years ago and dinosaurs fossils are all fake. - thescimitar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Judging by your use of capitals to denote "things", I'm finding it difficult to accept your arguments, matthewmok. It's not just bad grammar, it's a tell-tale sign the sort of strawman arguments "Intelligent Design Scientists" use.
Sorry, I dribbled a little saracasm on my keyboard there.
Also, taking a biology class does not equate being qualified to refute an entire body of scientific study. Sorry. - kieransam, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7@matthewmok
If you had actually taken a "reputable Biology course", you'd know that the theory of evolution has nothing to do with biogenesis. Evolution deals exclusively with populations of living organisms, and makes attempt to explain the origins of life. Nice try, though. - GabrielS, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5This is why the Internet is barrels of fun. You're debating a character named "buttsexatron".
IT'S A JOKE! - Akuinnen, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6"It's safe because it's all natural"
This should clue you in that someone is trying to sell you *****. Reflexology seems to be growing in popularity in my area :( - Bishoco, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9"That's because Global Warming IS pseudo-science."
If you believe this is true, then point out the pseudo-science in the following link then get back to me:
http://www.ipcc.ch/WG1_SPM_17Apr07.pdf - Urusai, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Homeopathy has these earmarks. One thing distinguishes a developed pseudoscience is a corpus of "knowledge" that has an arbitrary basis, like astrology, even if it is self-consistent. Homeopathy purports to be based on a principle that can extend that corpus (like cures like); however, you'll find that the actual agents prescribed for a particular symptom are based on arbitrary assignments in the literature by nominal authorities, sometimes backed by anecdote, but never on any systematic study or reproducible process.
- Railer, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7You want the classic book, the "Bible" of pseudoscience if you wish, pick up a copy of Flim-Flam by James Randi. It's an easy read, a little dated, and will really develop your ***** meter skills.
http://www.randi.org/shopping/ - matthewmok, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Fair enough.
- SultanTravi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I hate pseudo-science. I'm so glad you posted this.
I'm going to digg this, then go to buy some rare earth magnets to put on my body. - TheDreadPirate, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Well, the Bible kind of does say that, if you take it at face value and count the years in the genealogy from Adam to Jesus. The Bible never says "The Earth is only 6,000 years old!" per se, but it can be inferred from the text.
- Lister169, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Great article.
I've wondered why I've never read a horoscope in the paper that says, "If you were born on this date you are a lazy slob, destined for anonymity and an excruciatingly painful death. Everyone thinks you're a loser and you're family hopes you will die soon so they can take what few possessions you own. Your lucky numbers are 666, 13, and Pi."
I guess only happy, soon to be successful, well-loved people ever read their horoscope in the paper. - ViperDaimao, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5*cough9/11trutherscough*
- 10lbhammer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3wow, dude. you get the award for the craziest post I've read this whole week.
congratulations! - ahawks, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3If *either of you* had taken a "reputable biology course" you'd know that the Theory of Evolution deals specifically with genetic alterations over many generations of species, combined with natural selection forces ("survival of the fittest"), to result in speciation (the process by which species diverge to become new species).
- danthek54, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5guys
you seriously need to stop talking about religion as if its a science. are you so bothered by current events that you have to view religion in the context of a science? RELIGION IS NOT A SCIENCE there is a difference between creationists and just religious people. Look i laugh at creationists for their complete ignorance to scientific fact too but diggers are making it seem that anyone who has any semblance of religious thought is an ignorant backwards creationist. stop stereotyping an entire group because some members of that group are morons.
I personally am an atheist and i dislike religion but a line has to be drawn when i see diggers acting like a bunch of inquisitors looking for blood. - ahawks, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3So that's where I left it. Could you mail it back to me?
- Cl1mh4224rd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3For all the people who just don't get it...
Origin of Species does not equal Origin of Life. - jerbaker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3It's not in the list because that's not a sign of pseudoscience. There is nothing about making a hypothesis that is "pseudoscientific." In fact, it's fundamental to the scientific process. Didn't you learn this in school?
- Grrreen, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6@usercc
"Man-made global warming is a hoax. All who religiously believe in Al Gore's global hoax are truly naive."
Even if it is a hoax, (a theory which cannot be proven), don't you think, (given the implications not only to the globe but to the human race itself), that it would be more intelligent to err on the side of caution?
Or are you too puffed up with self-aggrandizement to bother...? - Spacejack, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2darkstar - if only that were true across the board. Far too many revisions, even of undergraduate math texts, but far more in other fields such as foreign languages, are simply to make the books "hipper." A revised edition of an undergrad textbook is as likely to swap out a picture of Kurt Cobain for a picture of Shakira as it is likely to actually contain changes in the body of the text. (You might ask why there's such a picture in the textbook to begin with, which is a DARN GOOD QUESTION.)
And then the books, which are going to be revised again next year anyway so the new students will have to get the new one, are printed like Sherman freakin' tanks even though they are fully expected to be obselete within one or two years.
The hardcore, steel-jacketed textbook makes good sense if it's going to be used for six or seven years by different students. In other words, it makes sense in high schools, and in those rare situations where a college textbook can last a few years. For an undergraduate class, it really makes more sense to make the textbooks disposable--at least on the students' end of things. - wakananda, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2It is reasonable, if poetic, to term alternative therapies the "choice of planet Earth": most people prefer to use commonly-available means (such as herbs, or cleansing) with a low incidence of side effects, than to wait until the cumulative effects of neglect necessitate "heroic" surgery or harmful drugs. Alternative therapies - herbalism, etc.- have been in use for tens of thousands of years. These "alternatives" to heroic medicine's aggressively-defended monopoly are co-evolutionary, the *design* (as it were) of the biosphere. Animals seek specific herbal remedies for specific ailments (that is presumably how the utility of most herbs was discovered).
Have you heard the term "douche?"
Yes, Timmy, big pharma works to supress alternative therapies. Oil companies work to supress, contain or coopt alternatives to petroleum. The AMA itself set up a boiler-room operation to defame and supress chiropractic that was investigated and shut down by US Congress. The FDA has raided countless offices and clinics, guns drawn, ripping phone cords out of the walls, confiscating all records - on the thinnest of pretexts. FDA has ordered *cook-books burned* because they contained recipies with the sweetening herb, Stevia, at the time that the artificial sweetner and neurotoxin Aspartame ("Nutrasweet") was first being marketed. A single batch of the essential amino acid, Tryptophan, was contamiated, and the FDA used that isolated incident as a pretext to BAN the import and/or sale of this nutrient (which is an effective anxiolytic and soporific). Shortly thereafter, Prozac hit the scene. When people get together discretely to advance their own interests, knowing that their actions would be widely deemed objectionable if known, such an effort may justly and reasonably be called "conspiracy." -
Show 51 - 100 of 139 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is