The Need for Pseudoscience

RosaMagika?

It just surprises me how so much of the evidence that is produced about it looks like something from Earth. Why are aliens told to have heads? And limbs? And why do they fly around in ships? So earthly!
Click to expand...

What do you expect them to come in? In baloons? Technology would be the same for any species, regardless of which planet they are on. We did not invent gravity; we discovered gravity. We did not invent nuclear energy; we discovered nuclear energy. We are inventing nothing, that is our only our own, we are only discovering what the universe already has.. So wether humans discover it here, or Greys discover it 39 light years away. It's the same discovery, and the same principles.
 
Hmmmm,

Without speculation of thought we all turn into Persol. Mindless baboons who only accept what we are told to.

Where would we be today if everyone had the same view as these debunkers?
 
Crazymikey,

Technology would be the same for any species, regardless of which planet they are on. We did not invent gravity; we discovered gravity. We did not invent nuclear energy; we discovered nuclear energy. We are inventing nothing, that is our only our own, we are only discovering what the universe already has.. So wether humans discover it here, or Greys discover it 39 light years away. It's the same discovery, and the same principles.
Click to expand...

The thing is: How can you be sure that technology would be the same for all species?
I get your point: we aren't inventing anything, we're only discovering. But WE cannot fly through space the way those Greys 39 light years away obviously would have to be able to in order to come to Earth. We don't have that sort of technology, and missions with living humans on board are not successfully landing on other planets. Those Greys have to be somehow advanced; and we don't necessarily know in which way they are advanced.
 
I respect your right to believe in whatever you want, but then please respect my right, to believe in what I want.

I respect your right to believe in nonsense, while on the other hand I cannot respect you for doing so.

I hope you realise what you reject as pseudo science, maybe actual science.

Pseudoscience is not science, if it were it wouldn’t be labeled as pseudoscience. And the reason why it is not science is because it fails miserably upon rigorous testing.

What has been dismissed as psuedo science and witchcraft, is now recognized as science.

Nonsense, what exactly are you referring?

How can you for say for sure, ETI is not visiting us, FTL is not possible, anti gravity, higher dimensions, cold fusion, mind control, is not possible?

No evidence. No observations. Nothing. Zilch.

Take me for example. I do not believe in God, or time travel, but I am open to the possibility of their existence. Why?

Or, you really, really want to believe they are true despite the evidence against or lack thereof.

As phlogistician recommends, pay attention at school.
 
I respect your right to believe in nonsense, while on the other hand I cannot respect you for doing so.
Click to expand...

Yet, how can you say it is nonsense without knowing it is nonsense. Unless you believe it is nonsense, thus by your system of logic, your belief is nonsense. Furthermore, if someone wants to believe nonsense, why can you not respect that, when the truisms of the universe, and your meaningless life is nonsense.

Pseudoscience is not science, if it were it wouldn’t be labeled as pseudoscience. And the reason why it is not science is because it fails miserably upon rigorous testing.
Click to expand...

Yet, how do you test speculations of future sciences or mathematical models when you have nothing to test it with. FTL, parallel dimensions, superstrings, zero point energy, are theoretically verified concepts based on ACTUAL physics. How are they pseudoscience then? Because you cannot test the weight of an object, before the advent of principles to measure weight, it does not mean there is no weight.

UFOology is also recognized as a legitimate research and educational field, which is based on the study of the ACTUAL UFO phenomenon. Then how is that pseudoscience?

You are right actually, pseudoscience cannot be science, yet that does not stop you from wrongly labelling, does it? Hypocrit.

What has been dismissed as psuedo science and witchcraft, is now recognized as science.
Click to expand...

First of all, don't be so quick to shout nonense, it only makes you look stupid. This really should not be new to you if you're educated, which by the tenor of your post, and your attitude and your lack of knowledge of current physics, is doubtful.

In the past, what you take for granted, as science today, was ridiculed as pseudoscience, or called evil or witchcraft in the past. In China, the great king who united China, called the scribes evil, and buried them all alive. Galileo, Darwin, Lyell, and Harvey, Bruno's science that you take for granted, was called pseudo science. Charles Babbage, who almost brought about an early victorian information age, was dismissed as nonsense and pseudo science.

No; it is not confined to the past, even today, most recent examples of Nicola Tesla, Podkletnov, T. Townsend Brown, or research on Torsion fields, cold fusion, zero point energy are ridiculed and dismissed as pseudoscience.

You see, you say you are scientific, yet you embody the same stupidity of all those in the past, who dismissed revolutionary science. Guess what? Even they thought they were scientific. Yet you are so stupid, that you even ignore the latest in science, that is affirming the existence of a lot of this "pseudoscience" you call.

You are a leach. Not a scientist. You don't even know what science is. You leach of the efforts, and creative energies of past scientists that faced persecution, ridicule, punishment, and think you understand it. Yet at the same time, you ridicule those current generation scientists, who are brimming with creative energy, and struggling against stupidity like yours. You know, it's not even about science for your breed of people. You are just using it as an excuse to feel better than others. It could be anything, money, social status, intelligence, bigger penis, you just want to feel you're better than others, and that is why you're so smaller than others. You're a primate, my friend, and you contribute nothing to society. You just leach of the efforts of others.

Take me for example. I do not believe in God, or time travel, but I am open to the possibility of their existence. Why?
Click to expand...

No fool. I am an atheist, I do not believe in God. At the same time I am open to the possibility of there being a God, because unlike you, I am down to earth and aware of how vast and complex thiis universe is. How long are you going to live? The next day you might be gone, and that it's total cessation of you, every one of your experiences, memories, and what you ignorantly call "knowledge" has vanished. Yet, the universe continues, and the human species continues, and the growth of science continues. Know your place in the universe. If anything, being born a human, you should be able to relate to others and help others. However in your case, you're this selfish little child, who thinks the world revolves around him, and he is in a position to judge everyone. I honestly abhore people like you; you're just retarding our development like a parasite.

P.S I did pay attention in school actually, in fact even beyond school, I've not stopped learning. I learn new things everyday. It could be the latest in physics, or the works of a philosopher, or events in history. It's obvious you do not. You also have not learned any manners. You're pitiful.
 
Last edited:
But WE cannot fly through space the way those Greys 39 light years away obviously would have to be able to in order to come to Earth. We don't have that sort of technology, and missions with living humans on board are not successfully landing on other planets. Those Greys have to be somehow advanced; and we don't necessarily know in which way they are advanced.
Click to expand...

Why are they advanced? There could be several reasons:

First consider this: Humans have advanced from the stone age, to the space age in 10,000 years. In just the last 100 years, we gone from horseback riding to space flight, space weapons, supercomputing, particle physics.
In fact, if the growth of science was not inhibited, we would have reached the space age 2000+ years earlier.

Now let's consider those reasons

1: They have had more time than us to evolve than us:

This could range from 10,000 years to millions of years. Now think of it - if we can go from the stone age to space age in 10,000 years, where can we go from the space age in a million years.

2: They have advanced faster than us:

As I told you, if we were capable of reaching our present level of technology 2000 years+ ago. Then it means, if the Greys did, they would be 2000+ years ahead of us, even if we had the same time to evolve.

3: They are much more naturally intelligent

We know, that the intelligence of a species varies from species to species. Our average intelligence is 100. Their average intelligence could be 300. Which means in the same time, they could be far more advanced than us.

4: They have been artifically advanced

Another ETI species has helped them, by speeding up their evolution and their technological growth.

It could be a combination of so many factors, and this would explain how the Greys are more advanced than us.
 
Crazymikey,

I get your point and I agree with the arguments you presented, you convinced me.
What bugs me is this: How would we perceive a being that has IQ 300? What does a chicken think when meeting a human? Or a snail? Maybe we are just a big blur to them -- and therefore, ETI could be just a blur to us ...
If we would want to perceive ETI, would their intelligence have to be of the same kind as ours, only bigger?

Or is it, that they actually do are a blur to us, and we interpret this blur in our earthly manner? This seems very likely.

The Universe is vast (or at least it seems so to us), of course, and so are its options.
 
Well think of it like this, we consider Einstein so intellectually superior and a role model for scientists. Now with an average IQ of 300+, double the intelligence of Einstein, just think how primitive we would look to them. When we pecieve them, we would probably see them as demi Gods.
 
If you really wanted to push the inhibition of science further, you could state that for the most part the religious factors implimented control over people saw science as a dangerous playground because of all their beliefs being undermined by new found knowledge.

In fact the case is still proven through different scientific endevours and how they are perceived.
 
crazymikey said:
What do you expect them to come in? In baloons? Technology would be the same for any species, regardless of which planet they are on. We did not invent gravity; we discovered gravity. We did not invent nuclear energy; we discovered nuclear energy.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, but this is bullshit. SCIENCE 'might' be the same regardless of location. Saying that technology would be is plain stupid. We have technology because we see aneed for it. Maybe a species on another planet is incredibly fragile and weak, and had to spend many more years than we to build infrastructure. Maybe they don't have a large supply of radioactive elements, hence no nuclear technology. Maybe they have a huge food shortage or disease or disaster, and have spent an inordinate amount of time on researching solutions to that.

Very simply, research depends on many many factors... and you'd be demonstrating even more ignorance if you assume that all the factors all the same.
 
Persol, show me where I said, that all the factors will be the same? I also hope you realize, that discovering atomic energy, need not be completely dependent on having nuclear isotopes.
 
Pseudoscience.

Much has been made lately about the term as it applies to this forum -mostly by one particular member, but to address the topic, "The Need For Pseudoscience," one needs to consider is it referring to the "necessity of the forum" or the "necessity of the term."

The question has been raised that the term pseudoscience doesn?t fit this forum since it is offensive to those that have alternative or open-minded "theories" about various events or unexplained phenomena. Of primary consideration here is the UFO/ETI issue, but ostensibly it would apply to cold fusion, zero point, remote viewing, etc.

The term, "pseudoscience" is quite aptly defined as an activity resembling science but based on fallacious assumptions.

The offensive part arises when this definition is applied to discussions that go on in this forum. The proponents of ideas and claims that are paranormal, metaphysical, or alternative science take offense to having their ideas and claims categorically defined as "fake" or "based on fallacious assumptions."

My position is that Pseudoscience aptly describes nearly every claim made in this forum and that these claims are, indeed, based on fallacious assumptions." I do, however, understand (and to a certain point, sympathize with) those that are offended and why. But in looking at the top 5 or 10 threads in this forum, one can note the very telling characteristics of pseudoscience, which are given here in two sets:


  1. [*]Has the subject shown progress?
    [*]Does the discipline use technical words such as "vibration" or "energy" without clearly defining what they mean?
    [*]Would accepting the tenets of a claim require you to abandon any well established physical laws?
    [*]Are popular articles on the subject lacking in references?
    [*]Is the only evidence offered anecdotal in nature?
    [*]Does the proponent of the subject claim that "air-tight" experiments have been performed that prove the truth of the subject matter, and that cheating would have been impossible?
    [*]Are the results of the aforementioned experiments successfully repeated by other researchers?
    [*]Does the proponent of the subject claim to be overly or unfairly criticized?
    [*]Is the subject taught only in non-credit institutions?
    [*]Are the best texts on the subject decades old?
    [*]Does the proponent of the claim use what one writer has called "factuals" - statements that are a largely or wholly true but unrelated to the claim?
    [*]When criticized, do the defenders of the claim attack the critic rather than the criticism?
    [*]Does the proponent make appeals to history (i.e. it has been around a long time, so it must be true)?
    [*]Does the subject display the "shyness effect" (sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't)?
    [*]Does the proponent use the appeal to ignorance argument ("there are more things under heaven ? than are dreamed of in your philosophy ?")?
    [*]Does the proponent use alleged expertise in other areas to lend weight to the claim?

Found on the web at: http://physics.syr.edu/courses/modules/PSEUDO/moller.html


Another good source of information for discussion of pseudoscientific thought and reasoning can be found in John Casti's Paradigms Lost. Dr. Massimo Pagliucci of rationallyspeaking.org adapted from Casti a small pdf file called Science vs. pseudoscience .

In it, he provides a summary of Casti's characteristics of pseudoscience, which include:

  • Anachronistic thinking (or appealing to the wisdom of the ancients).
  • Seeking Mysteries
  • Appeals to Myths (much like the recent mythology and lore surrounding UFO/ETI).
  • Casual Approach to Evidence
  • Irrefutable Hypotheses
  • Spurious Similarities
  • Explanation by Scenario
  • Research by Literary Interpretation
  • Refusal to Revise
  • Shift the Burden of Proof to the Other Side
  • A Theory is Legitimate Simply Because it's New, Alternative, or Daring (also known as the Galileo Effect: "they refused to believe/persecuted/ridiculed Galileo too").

So to respond to the thread title: pseudoscience is not needed or even desired. Yet, there will always be those who lack critical thinking ability, fall victim to fallacy, or simply be amazed by that which is beyond their comprehension or education to analyze. Interestingly enough, these same people will claim that their methods are scientific and condemn those who are critical of their beliefs as being "unscientific," "not having an open mind," or "refusing to think out-of-the-box." The latter being my favorite cop out.

But it is the very bounded nature of science that justifies the "box." Certain rules and methodology need be adhered to in order to call a method scientific, otherwise it is just "fake" science. The terminology of alternative science is just as telling, yet that is what some proponents of pseudoscience prefer. But "alternative" simply suggests, again, that which is not science.

Creativity and "out-of-the-box" thinking have their places within scientific method, but when it comes time to announce a hypothesis, one must have the part that was "out of the box" back in it. In other words, a wild hypothesis is fine for exploring an observation, but in the end it must be falsifiable, testable and reproducible, and it must give rise to predictive results and new hypotheses.

By itself, Crazymikey's hypothesis of UFO/ETI visitation is viable, but when it is held to strict scientific methodology, he refuses to revise the hypothesis or obtain better testing (evidence). When the evidence he suggests is criticized, he resorts to ad hominem remarks and logical fallacy. Moreover, crazymikey accuses his critics of logical fallacy without explaining or pointing out the correct reasoning or why the reasoning was fallacious. Or if he has, someone please point it out as I have missed it.

But crazymikey is just one example of pseudoscientific thinking... fluid is a far better example.
 
Skinwalker

That was pretty much what I was going to say to crazymikey, thanks.
 
crazymikey said:
Persol, show me where I said, that all the factors will be the same? I also hope you realize, that discovering atomic energy, need not be completely dependent on having nuclear isotopes.
Click to expand...
I wonder if you actually read my post. I said specifcally that the basic science would be the same. I take issue with your idiotic comment about TECHNOLOGY being the same. Having nuclear material is most certainly a prerequisite for atomic reactors/bombs... even if they could understand the science behind it, they would not have the technology. Hell, you can even look at the technology differences between Asia and Europe before they started associating with each other. Different materials, needs, and social influences lead to different research and technologies. Saying 'technology would be the same for every species' is simply ignorant.
 
Persol, you dunce, I said technology would be the same, not saying, they would have had all our technologies, but by saying, but they would discover the same universal scientific principles.

Skincrawler, it's very ironic you talking about critical thinking and, and falling to fallacy. It's like PM talking about modesty.

By itself, Crazymikey's hypothesis of UFO/ETI visitation is viable, but when it is held to strict scientific methodology, he refuses to revise the hypothesis or obtain better testing (evidence). When the evidence he suggests is criticized, he resorts to ad hominem remarks and logical fallacy. Moreover, crazymikey accuses his critics of logical fallacy without explaining or pointing out the correct reasoning or why the reasoning was fallacious. Or if he has, someone please point it out as I have missed it.
Click to expand...

Did you miss the 2 page post on how I proved your arguments are fallacious, young man. As for the evidence I've produced, you have not tested it, I've seen you all visibly strugle against it, and resort to ad hominem and other fallacy. Of course, that was bound to happen, as the evidence is so overwhelming.

I'm aware what Psuedoscience is, chap, and UFolology, and FTL, parallel dimensions, string theory and zero point physics, is not pseudoscience. It's the latest in physics, which you don't know, because your knowledge is only limited to what's been taught in school.
 
Skinwalker, A+ post.

Crazymikey, why don't you go and claim James Randi's million dollars?

A brief explanation, before launching into this week's discussion: you'll note that I've been publishing here some of the more outrageous applications we've been receiving for the JREF prize, and also some of the furious attacks that we have to survive, regularly. This is being done so that readers can begin to better understand just what we go through, almost every day, at this office. It's important that you witness just how out-of-touch with reality many of these folks are, how furious and desperate they become, and how difficult a response can be when they're not required to abide by the rules of logic and respect, while we are so bound. Believe me, there is no agenda here to make these people look silly; they usually do that without any assistance from us. We publish this material to keep you informed of the basic three-fold fact that keeps us active: the public is grossly misinformed about how the real world works, the media feeds that ignorance, and we urgently need to address this situation before we are populated by a generation of affluent but unaware citizens who can lead our species back into another Dark Age — and are already forming up ranks to do just that. No, that is not overstating the case. Read ahead for some frightening and sobering attitudes and opinions that should alert you to, or remind you of, the problem.
Click to expand...

http://www.randi.org/jr/032604why.html
 
Last edited:
All of the pseudoscience characteristics mentioned below can be referenced in my post above.

crazymikey said:
Persol, you dunce,
Click to expand...

Pseudoscience Characteristic #13

crazymikey said:
I said technology would be the same, not saying, they would have had all our technologies, but by saying, but they would discover the same universal scientific principles.
Click to expand...

Pseudoscience Characteristics #16 & letter 'g'

crazymikey said:
Skincrawler,
Click to expand...

Pseudoscience Characteristic #13

crazymikey said:
it's very ironic you talking about critical thinking and, and falling to fallacy.
Click to expand...

Pseudoscience Characteristics #12 and letters 'd' & 'e'

crazymikey said:
Did you miss the 2 page post on how I proved your arguments are fallacious, young man.
Click to expand...

Pseudoscience Characteristics #12 & 'd'

crazymikey said:
As for the evidence I've produced, you have not tested it,
Click to expand...

Pseudoscience Characteristic letter 'j'

crazymikey said:
and resort to ad hominem and other fallacy.
Click to expand...

Please point out any ad hominem remark that I've made and I will apologize in due course. It is likely, however, that you've fallaciously took criticism of hypotheses to be attacks on the person.

Speaking of fallacy, please also point out any fallacy that you've suggested on my part that I was unable to successfully defend as not fallacious at all. Reasoning is not fallacious simply because it discredits your hypotheses. That, in and of itself, is your fallacy.

crazymikey said:
I'm aware what Psuedoscience is, chap, and UFolology, and FTL, parallel dimensions, string theory and zero point physics, is not pseudoscience. It's the latest in physics, which you don't know, because your knowledge is only limited to what's been taught in school.
Click to expand...

Pseudoscience Characteristics #10, 11, 12, 13, 16, & 17 and letters 'd', 'e', 'f' and (of course) 'i'

Also, it is as likely as not that I'm older than you, therefore "young man" might not be an appropriate moniker from your perspective. Moreover, your assumption of my "knowledge" is in itself fallacious since it is highly unlikely that you have access to my credentials or transcripts. But your assertion that "UFOlogy" isn't pseudoscience is as wrong as you can be. It is nothing but pseudoscientific in it's majority (with a very, very small minority that are using scientific method).

Clearly, you are a pseudoscientific proponent. That's not an ad hominem remark, just a summation of evidence.
 
Skincrawler, im sorry but you're really wasting your time. Thus far, Lemming is the only skeptic that has produced somewhat rational arguments, and tested the claims, he is sensible about the issue. All you've done, is bullshit to be honest. So I'm not going to waste time with you.
 
I'm hurt.

The message you have entered is too short. Please lengthen your message to at least 10 characters.
 
However there are some things that are completely ludicrous like looking for shapes of things in martian rocks,

Listen to this NAZI crap.......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top