quackwatch.org — Because the media bombard us with nonsense, it is useful to consider the earmarks of pseudoscience. The presence of even one of these should arouse great suspicion. On the other hand, material displaying none of these flaws might still be pseudoscience, because its adherents invent new ways to fool themselves every day.
May 4, 2007 View in Crawl 4
bigmanoncampusMay 4, 2007
That'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).
wakanandaMay 4, 2007
This is a straw-man argument: you are putting the marketing claim of "natural" into the mouth of herbalists. No herbalist would justify their practice with the vapid claim that "it's natural." They might justify it (if pressed to the wall with verbal or legal threats) by saying it is less harmful, less invasive, with fewer side effects, works by stimulating the body's natural functions rather than overriding and substituting for those functions, and is lless expensive, both in the immediate purchase, and in terms of preventing costly, heroic interventions in future. Ordinary people may, uncritically, associate "natural" with good - but given the unintended consequences of human artifice in the news lately, and the day-to-day burdens of pollution, stultifying bureaucracy, and alienation from any - natural - sense of oneness with the environment or sense of community, can't they be forgiven their credulity? I think those who (for obvious reasons) seek to promote technocracy would do better to spend their energy mitigating the negative consequences of technology, humbly accepting stewardship of the biosphere, and putting technology to use for the benefit of the masses of ordinary people (rather than the profit of an elite). Or, technocrats can smear competitors as stupid and dangerous - and see where that gets them.
vikingcoderMay 5, 2007
Correlation does not imply causation.Why point to a secondary effect, when a primary source is efficiently measurable?
popefuguMay 5, 2007
I've noticed instances where detractors of evolution actually lump other scientific fields (such as geology), theories and concepts under a broad evolution category. This phenomenon is not just limited to real sciences, but pseudosciences as well, such as the hypothesis of abiogenesis (spontaneous generation).
popefuguMay 5, 2007
Despite my own dismissal of religion, lowliestpeon is someone I can at least respect. He or she can obviously differentiate between it and science. We do not yet know how exactly life began. Believers of intelligent design or other ideas have, in some cases, linked the amino acid hypothesis to abiogenesis (spontaneous generation, a true example of pseudoscience), and then labeled it as a facet of evolutionary theory.
gregtmillsMay 5, 2007
Herr Wok -- The Origin of Species also doesn't claim this is a universal process. This is how specization has been observed on earth. It's actually a pretty humble little theory.
fusion5May 5, 2007
mastercko: Yes, I agree with you, science has all those benefits, however the author dismisses all pseudoscience in favor of sticking to what already exists, which I think leads to no progress (like wakananda said, they get stuck in their flowchart)Pseudoscience is fuzzy, in the sense that there is good knowledge and is bad knowledge (the Earth is hollow), but remember there is also knowledge that can be constructive and could lead to progress (like NLP in the field of psychology). Stay open, who knows? Also check out this video about Getting Creative Ideas:<a class="user" href="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1181750045682633998&q=Murray+Gell-Mann">http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1181750045682633998&q=Murray+Gell-Mann</a>PS. Science can't prove the world is older than 5 minutes. How can it disprove that the world was created from scratch by Kiwibanana God (a deity I just invented) 5 minutes ago but in a state that gives the impression of oldness?
lowliestpeonMay 5, 2007
Well, maybe miraculous isn't exactly the right word. (with all those religious connotations) It's just that if I imagine myself observing the world before life, looking around & seeing a bunch of lava, primordial soup, & whatnot, the fact that it turned into life seems...improbable. Ouch! I think I just hurt my brain. ..the medication helps
ottoMay 7, 2007
@matthew: I'm sorry that you're an idiot, however if you want me to rip apart your strawman, fine.>>>"Evolution does make such claims -- evolutionists like you are always trying the clever tactic of disassociating the two; because you know if you don't you have no defensible argument."Evolution does *not* make such claims, and your insistence that it does only proves that you have no idea what you're talking about.Evolution describes how life changes over time. It does not describe where life comes from. The very meaning of evolution requires life to already exist. Evolution is *known* to be true. It's used as a working model by actual people who use it to figure out actual things. Genetic engineering assumes it as a proven fact because without evolution, nothing that they actually *see* in the genetic code makes any sense.The origin question is the unanswered one of how, exactly, life started in the first place. There are theories and some (admittedly weak) experimental evidence to back them up, however knowing how life began is not necessary to know how life evolved.>>>"I know how to read and so I don't misunderstand the Law. However to humor you, since you obviously do understand what it means, praytell, what does it mean when a Law states that Life must come from Life?"The law of biogenesis disproved a specific form of creationism. That is all it did. It says that complex life does not appear fully formed in the circumstances that were tested. What it does not say is that more complex molecules can form from simple processes and simpler molecules. That has, in fact, been proven to be true (see the Miller/Urey experiments).There is no law of biogenesis saying that very primitive life cannot form from increasingly complex molecules.>>>"Also -- you make too many assumptions, common among poor learners such as yourself."My only assumption is that you're an idiot without a clue WTF you're talking about, however it's not much of a stretch given the words that you are typing.
archiesteelMar 21, 2010
@Penta5: too bad you didn't understand the point of the article, and still believe in pseudoscience like the one saying AGW is false because Mars is warming too (it isn't, by the way).