Revolutionary science vs psuedoscience

[Magical Realist]

Is there any way to tell the difference between the two? There was a time for example when continental drift theory was laughed at by geologists as preposterous. Today it is widely accepted in the form of the more comprehensive plate tectonic theory. Are there some new scientific theories today that are called psuedoscience but which may actually prove to be revolutionary science? What exactly are the criteria for judging a field of study or theory "pseudoscience"?

 

[Read-Only]

Is there any way to tell the difference between the two? There was a time for example when continental drift theory was laughed at by geologists as preposterous. Today it is widely accepted in the form of the more comprehensive plate tectonic theory. Are there some new scientific theories today that are called psuedoscience but which may actually prove to be revolutionary science? What exactly are the criteria for judging a field of study or theory "pseudoscience"?

The primary qualifier for judging such things is VERY simple and clear - it must have SOME basis in reality. A quick glance around this site will provide you with many examples of bad science where some crank has pulled some idea out of thin air - and such ideas violate proven and acceptable physics. A couple of prime examples: perpetual motion and free energy. Also, there are things like that nutcase, Mazulu claims - that antigravity can be created by changing the frequency of light that has already left it's source.

 

[Asexperia]

Revolutionary science must conform at least one of these criteria: verifiability, internal consistency and generality (that explains several cases).
But also there are many inequities in assessing new ideas because they are rejected outright.

 

[Magical Realist]

There is a history of rejection of various new ideas and technologies outright by the scientific community because they were viewed as opposing what were considered scientific facts at that time. Here's a brief summary of some of the revolutionary science that was not received well back in the day:


http://www.foresight.org/news/negativeComments.html

 

[Read-Only]

There is a history of rejection of various new ideas and technologies outright by the scientific community because they were viewed as opposing what were considered scientific facts at that time. Here's a brief summary of some of the revolutionary science that was not received well back in the day:


http://www.foresight.org/news/negativeComments.html

I have no problem with such things having been rejected in the past - and current ideas as well. All that is required to establish something and get it accepted is additional work to show it's possibilities and experimental data to support it.

But the thing about psuedo is that cranks will NOT put forth that effort. All they want to do is TALK and cry about their nutty ideas not being accepted at face value. Once again, for proof of what I'm saying, simply look around this very site.

 

[river]

The thing is , is this

We must be on top of what is going on out there on the cutting edge of science in all disciplines of science , all the time

Which are made by brilliant people in their fields of study , which for the most part are way ahead of common knowledge

Therefore the only way to critic them is to understand the theory they put forward

 

[brucep]

There is a history of rejection of various new ideas and technologies outright by the scientific community because they were viewed as opposing what were considered scientific facts at that time. Here's a brief summary of some of the revolutionary science that was not received well back in the day:


http://www.foresight.org/news/negativeComments.html

It isn't pseudoscience just because there was skepticism about the theoretical predictions derived describing natural phenomena. Theoretical models make predictions about natural phenomena which can be empirically falsified or confirmed. In some cases technology limits might lead to delays in testing theoretical predictions. Scientific facts are empirically confirmed 'not considered as such'. Pseudoscience fails to meet these standards. Decent discussion on this subject that you could have 'googled'.
pseudoscience
http://www.skepdic.com/pseudosc.html

 

[river]

It isn't pseudoscience just because there was skepticism about the theoretical predictions derived describing natural phenomena. Theoretical models make predictions about natural phenomena which can be empirically falsified or confirmed. In some cases technology limits might lead to delays in testing theoretical predictions. Scientific facts are empirically confirmed 'not considered as such'. Pseudoscience fails to meet these standards. Decent discussion on this subject that you could have 'googled'.
pseudoscience
http://www.skepdic.com/pseudosc.html

And its not always about predictions either

Since research into cutting edge science doesn't get the support , financially and/or academically for the most part

 

[brucep]

And its not always about predictions either

Since research into cutting edge science doesn't get the support , financially and/or academically for the most part

It is about the predictive power of the theoretical model. Whether you like it or not. So you think pseudoscientific models can't be predictive because they don't get 'support'? They don't get support because they don't meet the standards set by the scientific method. IE they're a waste of resources if they don't do anything useful other than fire up a bunch of scientifically illiterate cranks on public science forums.

So, for you, 'cutting edge science = pseudoscience'?

 

[wellwisher]

Instead of placing the focus on pseudo-science, a better question to ask is, why are there many cases where revolutionary science is not accepted, at first, seeing it was right even while it was being rejected? Why do so many defend the lie, for so long? Scientists are not always rational when the new appears.

One way to address this is, revolutionary science creates a problem for the status quo, since it may result in the experts, who currently occupy the big chairs, becoming amateurs again. They may not qualify for the big chair for the new.

They may not want to be seen as amateurs, using the criticism as a smoke screen to hide freshman level understanding. They may also drag their feet screeming until they get used to it and their position is less in jeopardy.

 

[river]

Instead of placing the focus on pseudo-science, a better question to ask is, why are there many cases where revolutionary science is not accepted, at first, seeing it was right even while it was being rejected? Why do so many defend the lie, for so long? Scientists are not always rational when the new appears.

One way to address this is, revolutionary science creates a problem for the status quo, since it may result in the experts, who currently occupy the big chairs, becoming amateurs again. They may not qualify for the big chair for the new.

They may not want to be seen as amateurs, using the criticism as a smoke screen to hide freshman level understanding. They may also drag their feet screeming until they get used to it and their position is less in jeopardy.

Agreed

Ego

But in the meantime , science falls behind , is this acceptable ? Or should it be ?

 

[river]

What I would like to see , is those that have contributed to science past be respected for there contributions , and then these same people respect what is new

When this happens there is a smooth transition from what was , too what is now in science thought

And therefore progress in science

With no bitterness but actually a cooperation

 

[AlexG]

Instead of placing the focus on pseudo-science, a better question to ask is, why are there many cases where revolutionary science is not accepted, at first, seeing it was right even while it was being rejected? Why do so many defend the lie, for so long? Scientists are not always rational when the new appears.

One way to address this is, revolutionary science creates a problem for the status quo, since it may result in the experts, who currently occupy the big chairs, becoming amateurs again. They may not qualify for the big chair for the new.

They may not want to be seen as amateurs, using the criticism as a smoke screen to hide freshman level understanding. They may also drag their feet screeming until they get used to it and their position is less in jeopardy.

This is written by someone who has no idea how academia, science or research works.

 

[brucep]

Instead of placing the focus on pseudo-science, a better question to ask is, why are there many cases where revolutionary science is not accepted, at first, seeing it was right even while it was being rejected? Why do so many defend the lie, for so long? Scientists are not always rational when the new appears.

One way to address this is, revolutionary science creates a problem for the status quo, since it may result in the experts, who currently occupy the big chairs, becoming amateurs again. They may not qualify for the big chair for the new.

They may not want to be seen as amateurs, using the criticism as a smoke screen to hide freshman level understanding. They may also drag their feet screeming until they get used to it and their position is less in jeopardy.

Historically that has happened. SR was slow to be completely accepted. So give us a list of '... why are there many cases where revolutionary science is not accepted, at first, seeing it was right even while it was being rejected?' If a theoretical models predictions are empirically confirmed the literature will support 'that' and what individual scientists think about 'that' is irrelevant unless they can show the predictions can be falsified. The standard is the scientific literature derived from the scientific method not what confused scientists think. There's no focus on pseudoscience because it doesn't perform a useful service. If you want to ask your new question provide some reference to your claim "... why are there many cases where revolutionary science is not accepted, at first, seeing it was right even while it was being rejected?" Maybe in a new thread.

 

[leopold]

Is there any way to tell the difference between the two? There was a time for example when continental drift theory was laughed at by geologists as preposterous. Today it is widely accepted in the form of the more comprehensive plate tectonic theory. Are there some new scientific theories today that are called psuedoscience but which may actually prove to be revolutionary science? What exactly are the criteria for judging a field of study or theory "pseudoscience"?

in my opinion i consider the following as pseudoscience:
astrology.
tarot reading.
fortune telling.
water witching.

this isn't an exhaustive list and i don't have any criteria that fits them all.

 

[leopold]

Why do so many defend the lie, for so long?

possibly because most dissenting evidence, especially in regards to evolution of life, is excised and buried, the messengers ridiculed into oblivion.
this has a powerful effect on others.
ego and money are powerful motivators.
then there is the psychological response of "going with the flow" where authoritative figures "see something" and when it comes your turn you will say you seen it too.
i have presented evidence that would have had ANY scientist asking some serious questions about what exactly is happening here.
i guess a lot of it is an unwillingness to believe such a thing can happen and another large part comes from an inability to accept the alternatives.

 

[brucep]

What I would like to see , is those that have contributed to science past be respected for there contributions , and then these same people respect what is new

When this happens there is a smooth transition from what was , too what is now in science thought

And therefore progress in science

With no bitterness but actually a cooperation

You don't know what you're talking about. Please make sense.

 

[brucep]

Agreed

Ego

But in the meantime , science falls behind , is this acceptable ? Or should it be ?

Science falls behind? What would you know. Apparently you think nonsense is going to 'run rampant' in the literature. What's not acceptable is the dumb assertions you're making about a subject you're completely ignorant of.

 

[brucep]

possibly because most dissenting evidence, especially in regards to evolution of life, is excised and buried, the messengers ridiculed into oblivion.
this has a powerful effect on others.
ego and money are powerful motivators.
then there is the psychological response of "going with the flow" where authoritative figures "see something" and when it comes your turn you will say you seen it too.
i have presented evidence that would have had ANY scientist asking some serious questions about what exactly is happening here.
i guess a lot of it is an unwillingness to believe such a thing can happen and another large part comes from an inability to accept the alternatives.

You're trying to grind your axe on ignorance. That's what cranks do. Scientists won't agree with you if your science is garbage. Not because of an inability to accept alternatives. That's just an excuse to hang onto bs.

 

[leopold]

You're trying to grind your axe on ignorance. That's what cranks do. Scientists won't agree with you if your science is garbage. Not because of an inability to accept alternatives. That's just an excuse to hang onto bs.

tell it to the national academy of sciences, THEY are the ones i got the evidence from.
what say you now?
furthermore:
the source was freely available on the web, i posted the link to the source and the link stops working.
one such link i posted was active for at least 6 months and it too quits working within 3 days of posting it here.

THERE'S your bullshit.

so remember to ALWAYS download and save all of your links and evidence to your hard drive BEFORE posting it here.