Science is Science. There IS NO PSEUDOSCIENCE.
History dictates that personal opinions have dominated over The scientific method.
Imagine people thought the world was flat. Why did they think this?
Believing the world is flat is very unscientific because the entire concept is based on personal opinions, and have no validity in science if we were to look at the scientific method as a primary method of determiing reality.
A scientist today might say it is common sense to think the world is round, and a scientist from 1000 years ago would tell you it is common sense to think the world is flat.
Common sense and personal opinions should not be a part of the procedure we call science. It is arrogant and introduces bias.
Now imagine someone on Sciforums decided maybe the world was round. Scientifically this might be a decent assumption because there is no proof that the world is flat. It is a scientific hypothesis that ignores personal opinions. The author of this hypothesis would risk ridicule and probable bans (these days) for suggesting something so ridiculous. Imagine the audacity of suggesting the world is round, because if it was not flat we would all fall off.
Scientists are normal and likely intelligent people who like to make sense of things, and it is fairly obvious that if the world was round then everyone would fall off. This arrogance implementing personal opinion as fact is very common.
MOST SCIFORUMS MEMBERS SEEM TO HAVE SET PERSONAL OPINIONS THAT OVERRULE THEIR SCIENTIFIC NATURE. THESE WINGDINGS ARE MOSTLY POMPOUS AND ARROGANT KNOW-IT-ALLS who "feel" their opinions of reality overrule actual science.
(Hold you indignation until after you read entire post please)
Personal Opinion vs Real Science
Nobody has ever proved the world is flat, so why would you have that opinion?
Why would you argue in favor of an unproven theory based on personal opinion.
IT IS IDIOCY?
I see people argue against Telepathy which is stupid for several reasons.
The only valid argument against Telepathy is personal opinion. There is no factual basis for thinking Telepathy cannot exist except arrogant personal opinion. If we are going to let arrogant people decide science then why even bother with it. Let's just ask some of them how it all is.
How can a scientific mind rule out possibilities with no evidence? The only answer can be personal opinion/arrogance.
I know many here recognize their ignorance when I say these things, and expect some whining along the lines of "There is no proof of telepathy so why should we even consider it"? , and the short answer is because it has not been ruled out as a possibility. I could go further into mentioning successful experiments, etc., but that should not be necessary. It will always remain a possibility.
Using the same logic someone could argue that "pigs Flying" has also not been ruled out, and could also be a possibility. That is a smarter deduction than ruling it out altogether with no scientific proof. Until someone can prove pigs cannot fly then it is not ruled out. That should be a scientific perspective.
Does this make any sense to you?
Of course it doesn't.
Despite everything I have said I am now going to say that Personal Opinion and Common Sense MUST be the overall common denominator. I wrote the above in a way to show the problems with using Personal Opinion over Scientific Facts.
Now to answer the question.
Pseudoscience is science that does not agree with Personal Opinion. It does not make it false science. It is possibilities, just not popular ones.
Yes. Many sciences were once thought of as impossible and would be considered woo.
A hammer and nail would have been woo in the caveman era, as would a pizza.
That is likely the best way to describe pseudoscience, and I know pseudoscience.
History dictates that personal opinions have dominated over The scientific method.
Imagine people thought the world was flat. Why did they think this?
Believing the world is flat is very unscientific because the entire concept is based on personal opinions, and have no validity in science if we were to look at the scientific method as a primary method of determiing reality.
A scientist today might say it is common sense to think the world is round, and a scientist from 1000 years ago would tell you it is common sense to think the world is flat.
Common sense and personal opinions should not be a part of the procedure we call science. It is arrogant and introduces bias.
Now imagine someone on Sciforums decided maybe the world was round. Scientifically this might be a decent assumption because there is no proof that the world is flat. It is a scientific hypothesis that ignores personal opinions. The author of this hypothesis would risk ridicule and probable bans (these days) for suggesting something so ridiculous. Imagine the audacity of suggesting the world is round, because if it was not flat we would all fall off.
Scientists are normal and likely intelligent people who like to make sense of things, and it is fairly obvious that if the world was round then everyone would fall off. This arrogance implementing personal opinion as fact is very common.
MOST SCIFORUMS MEMBERS SEEM TO HAVE SET PERSONAL OPINIONS THAT OVERRULE THEIR SCIENTIFIC NATURE. THESE WINGDINGS ARE MOSTLY POMPOUS AND ARROGANT KNOW-IT-ALLS who "feel" their opinions of reality overrule actual science.
(Hold you indignation until after you read entire post please)
Personal Opinion vs Real Science
Nobody has ever proved the world is flat, so why would you have that opinion?
Why would you argue in favor of an unproven theory based on personal opinion.
IT IS IDIOCY?
I see people argue against Telepathy which is stupid for several reasons.
The only valid argument against Telepathy is personal opinion. There is no factual basis for thinking Telepathy cannot exist except arrogant personal opinion. If we are going to let arrogant people decide science then why even bother with it. Let's just ask some of them how it all is.
How can a scientific mind rule out possibilities with no evidence? The only answer can be personal opinion/arrogance.
I know many here recognize their ignorance when I say these things, and expect some whining along the lines of "There is no proof of telepathy so why should we even consider it"? , and the short answer is because it has not been ruled out as a possibility. I could go further into mentioning successful experiments, etc., but that should not be necessary. It will always remain a possibility.
Using the same logic someone could argue that "pigs Flying" has also not been ruled out, and could also be a possibility. That is a smarter deduction than ruling it out altogether with no scientific proof. Until someone can prove pigs cannot fly then it is not ruled out. That should be a scientific perspective.
Does this make any sense to you?
Of course it doesn't.
Despite everything I have said I am now going to say that Personal Opinion and Common Sense MUST be the overall common denominator. I wrote the above in a way to show the problems with using Personal Opinion over Scientific Facts.
Now to answer the question.
Pseudoscience is science that does not agree with Personal Opinion. It does not make it false science. It is possibilities, just not popular ones.
Yes. Many sciences were once thought of as impossible and would be considered woo.
A hammer and nail would have been woo in the caveman era, as would a pizza.
That is likely the best way to describe pseudoscience, and I know pseudoscience.