It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

pseudoscience

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 01:49 AM
link   
How much do we actually know about this kind of science?Is it related to black science and the occult and can it take many forms!

I am wondering if anyone else can elaborate on this for me as i am very interested on this topic!


Thanks in advance!


[edit on 30-4-2008 by CoNsPiRaCy PhReAk]




posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 02:05 AM
link   
Pseudoscience essentially pretends to be sciences without actually submitting itself to the rigors of the scientific method. Also known as Junk Science, or as Feynman called it, Cargo Cult Science. Frequently they will use scientific sounding words, especially quantum, in order to try and lend itself credibility. Pseudoscience doesn’t submit to peer review, tend to be dogmatic, and don’t put emphasis on falsification.

Some examples are Phrenology, Intelligent design, dianetics, and alternative medicine.

Being called Pseudoscience isn’t a good thing.

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 02:08 AM
link   
reply to post by CoNsPiRaCy PhReAk
 


Eh its a label they use for anything of a "spiritual" nature.
But that isn't its dictionary term.
Seeing as to theories about reality being a computer simulation is science and anything with that even looks like spirituality is "pseudoscience".



posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 02:24 AM
link   
Oh, watch it now! We don't wanna ruffle some feathers from 'Scientology'. Y'all might make 'Xenu' angry.




posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 02:28 AM
link   
Theories of reality being a computer simulation are just speculation. It can’t be proven or disproven. Its when someone tries to make it seem like an actual scientific theory that it becomes pseudoscience.

The term also gets used on things that are in no way spiritual, like phrenology.

If the scientific method isn’t used, if experiments aren’t or can’t be performed, if no attempts are made at falsification, if it has nothing to do with what can be observed, it isn’t science. But it doesn’t become pseudoscience until people try to pass it off as science.

And just a note, the word theory as scientists use it and the word theory as normal people use it are completely different. Scientific theories have experimental evidence supporting it, like gravity. Normal people use theory as just a guess or just speculation.



posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 02:28 AM
link   
reply to post by pikypiky
 


Pardon my figure of speech.
Erm what does Scientology have to do with the price of tea in China?



posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 03:23 AM
link   
reply to post by WraothAscendant
 


First, I didn’t understand the expression ‘the price of tea in China’ offhand. I'm slow. Basically, I find it difficult to connect this new ‘religious’ organization (i.e. ‘Scientology') as ‘science’ -- since the name lends itself at first glance to what appears to be the 'study' of some 'science' -- with the word ‘dianetics' (as originally mentioned per ‘Lethys’). I always thought religion and science are mutually exclusive and could never be combined as this ‘Scientology’ does. I am also learning how religion explains what science cannot.



posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 04:55 AM
link   
Pseudoscience is a word, doesn't matter what it means, because people will use it to call people 'quacks' or idiots when discussing 'alternative' topics. For instance, when talking about electro-gravitics or Electric star model, people throw pseudoscience at it to discredit the theory, when in fact, the theory shows alot more promise than the current theory, just because it isn't at the point of the current model, doesn't mean it will never be. Then you have things more spiritual, such as chakra meditation or astral projection, this same word will be incorporated into this mix of subjects the moment someone tries to explain how they MAY work.

quick explanation: Pseudoscience is defined as a body of knowledge, methodology, belief, or practice that is claimed to be scientific or made to appear scientific, but does not adhere to the scientific method, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, or otherwise lacks scientific status.

note the highlights, it has to be 'claimed' or 'made to appear' they can't just be trying to explain unknown phenomena with known theories and explanations now can they?

thanks. EMM



posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 02:26 PM
link   
reply to post by pikypiky
 


Who mentioned Scientology?

I try to avoid thinking about those quacks.


[edit on 30-4-2008 by WraothAscendant]



posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 02:31 PM
link   
yeah i hate scientologists! Some of their beliefs are just insane!

They even introduced celebrities to endorce the religion.
(my own opinion^)

[edit on 30-4-2008 by CoNsPiRaCy PhReAk]



posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 02:33 PM
link   
I agree with WrOath Ascendant.

In fact, pseudoscience is a term used to discount almost everything that ATS is made of.

The term and thinking was created to keep us fixed on consensus-reality as prescribed by our leaders as not to deviate too far off the hive-mind.



posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 07:30 PM
link   
reply to post by CoNsPiRaCy PhReAk
 


Flagged and Starred !!

Cuz I know a lot about pseudoscience. I have traveled to different dimensions by barrel rolling my cessna.



posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 09:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by CoNsPiRaCy PhReAk
How much do we actually know about this kind of science?Is it related to black science and the occult and can it take many forms!


It tends to be any part of 'science' that does not have at least one foot planted in the empirical thought plane.

What you seem interested in is the miracle makers, the healers, the rain makers etc, etc, etc.

To give a proper explanation it is all the same science and forces in both the white and black lodges. The same miracle in the Thelemic lodge is the counterpart of the Pentecostal church.

Here is the rub. Its the Intention that decides if the work is white or dark and as much evils happens in the churches as the black lodges. Don't let anyone tell you different if you signed a paper for church membership and consider yourself a member and not an attendee or visitor, you are a member of a white lodge. It may not be productive at all but that is what it is.

All science is rooted in chemistry. All chemistry came from alchemists.

Now if your still really interested jump over to the Law of attraction thread in the Paranormal forum and start at the beginning. These are people with a mastery of the pseudoscience as you understand it and have the proper and good intentions to be honorable before the creator.

Surprised SkyFloating didn't mention it. I suppose they all expect a seeker will find it, because they were seeking but the search funtion won't help when you have the wrong terms.....



posted on May, 1 2008 @ 04:12 AM
link   
Ahh i see! Well im glad i got a good response from people! I am realy interested in things like this and believe everyone posseses some sort of psychic ability they just have to learn how to tune their brains!

Very interesting stuff!



posted on May, 1 2008 @ 11:53 PM
link   
oh the slitherydee, the slitherydee. You might get all the rest, but you won't get me.........Tommy Smothers



posted on May, 2 2008 @ 04:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by debris765nju
oh the slitherydee, the slitherydee. You might get all the rest, but you won't get me.........Tommy Smothers


What the hell are you talking about? If your going to recite some comedian's quotes on a serious subject then i think you should get warned!



posted on May, 2 2008 @ 09:21 AM
link   
Wow! What a response. Pseudoscience is the beginning of every "real" science. Pseudointellectuals are those who pretend to know what everyone is talking about. All the people who made the greatest discoveries were persecuted by the church as heretics or witches, etc. The difference between real and peudo science is "empirical evidence", the ability to perform the same experiment in the same way and get the same results every time. When this thread left that arena and began "bashing" a religion, it opened the door for the slitherydee, you got all the others, but you didn't get..............



posted on May, 2 2008 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lethys
Pseudoscience essentially pretends to be sciences without actually submitting itself to the rigors of the scientific method.


Few scientific theories are submitted to the rigors of the scientific method as otherwise we would have never had to change our mind about anything. In fact maybe it's the scientific method that allows us to find 'empericle' evidence for almost any theory we have.


Also known as Junk Science, or as Feynman called it, Cargo Cult Science.


Cargo cult has little to do with pseudoscience and everything to do with the ' GOTG, if you will.
The cargo cult incidence just shows that people will believe what suits them when they do not have enough knowledge to objectively consider the implications of their observations.


Frequently they will use scientific sounding words, especially quantum, in order to try and lend itself credibility.


And funnily the the people who most often use that word are physicists! I'm just a lay person but i think i know BS when i see it and that's pretty much what quantum 'physics' is.


Pseudoscience doesn’t submit to peer review, tend to be dogmatic, and don’t put emphasis on falsification.


Scientist do not like submitting to peer review, which is why they lie so often in journals and never offer corrections, are just as dogmatic about what butters their bread and put as much emphasis on falsifying the data that ensures a paycheck as any sane person would. Human beings are in my opinion self serving and the scientific method is a IDEAL that is rarely adhered to in practice.


Some examples are Phrenology, Intelligent design, dianetics, and alternative medicine.

Being called Pseudoscience isn’t a good thing.


They also call LERN pseudoscience and have for the last few thousands of years quit consistently chosen the less descriptive and useful theory over the more descriptive and useful one.



* Arrhenius (ion chemistry)
* Alfven, Hans (galaxy-scale plasma dynamics)
* Baird, John L. (television camera)
* Bakker, Robert (fast, warm-blooded dinosaurs)
* Chandrasekhar, Subrahmanyan (black holes in 1930)
* Chladni, Ernst (meteorites in 1800)
* Doppler (optical Doppler effect)
* Folk, Robert L. (existence and importance of nanobacteria)
* Galvani (bioelectricity)
* Harvey, William (circulation of blood, 1628)
* Krebs (ATP energy, Krebs cycle)
* Galileo (supported the Copernican viewpoint)
* Gauss, Karl F. (nonEuclidean geometery)
* Binning/Roher/Gimzewski (scanning-tunneling microscope)
* Goddard, Robert (rocket-powered space ships)
* Goethe (Land color theory)
* Gold, Thomas (deep non-biological petroleum deposits)
* Gold, Thomas (deep mine bacteria)
* Lister, J (sterilizing)
* Margulis, Lynn (endosymbiotic organelles)
* Mayer, Julius R. (The Law of Conservation of Energy)
* Marshall, B (ulcers caused by bacteria, helicobacter pylori)
* McClintlock, Barbara (mobile genetic elements, "jumping genes", transposons)
* Newlands, J. (pre-Mendeleev periodic table)
* Nottebohm, F. (neurogenesis: brains can grow neurons)
* Ohm, George S. (Ohm's Law)
* Ovshinsky, Stanford R. (amorphous semiconductor devices)
* Pasteur, Louis (germ theory of disease)
* Prusiner, Stanley (existence of prions, 1982)
* Rous, Peyton (viruses cause cancer)
* Semmelweis, I. (surgeons wash hands, puerperal fever )
* Tesla, Nikola (Earth electrical resonance, "Schumann" resonance)
* Tesla, Nikola (brushless AC motor)
* J H van't Hoff (molecules are 3D)
* Warren, Warren S (flaw in MRI theory)
* Wegener, Alfred (continental drift)
* Wright, Wilbur & Orville (flying machines)
* Zwicky, Fritz (existence of dark matter, 1933)
* Zweig, George (quark theory)

* Ball lightning (lacking a theory, it was long dismissed as retinal afterimages)
* Catastrophism (ridicule of rapid Earth changes, asteroid mass extinctions)
* Child abuse (before 1950, doctors were mystified by "spontaneous" childhood bruising)
* Cooperation or altruism between animals (versus Evolution's required competition)
* Instantaneous meteor noises (evidence rejected because sound should be delayed by distance)
* Mind-body connection (psychoneuroimmunology, doctors ridiculed any emotional basis for disease)
* Perceptrons (later vindicated as Neural Networks)
* Permanent magnet levitation ("Levitron" shouldn't have worked)

www.amasci.com...


And that's a very short list of all the theories that were effectively suppressed for various lengths of time. I can offer some useful quotes by numerous Nobel prize winners as to how they hard and long they had to fight against dogmatic and useless skepticism/envy.

Stellar



posted on May, 2 2008 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by CoNsPiRaCy PhReAk
How much do we actually know about this kind of science?Is it related to black science and the occult and can it take many forms!

I am wondering if anyone else can elaborate on this for me as i am very interested on this topic!

Ahahaha, this is a joke right?

Pseudo means in leu of, or immitation of. Basically it is a word which means fake science.

But yes, your assertations are correct, many occult book sellers offer up loads of pseudo-science in hopes that you will believe their mumbo-jumbo. They prey on your naivity to suck the money right out of your pockets........


[edit on 5/2/2008 by Choronzon]



posted on May, 2 2008 @ 03:39 PM
link   


Few scientific theories are submitted to the rigors of the scientific method as otherwise we would have never had to change our mind about anything.


Scientific theories DO pass the rigors of the scientific method. The scientific method isn’t some unreasonable burden of proof that nothing can pass. All a theory has to do is agree with reality on experiments. If a theory is based on reality, and those experiments are within our ability to perform, it can pass the rigors.




In fact maybe it's the scientific method that allows us to find 'empericle' evidence for almost any theory we have.

Huh? What are you trying to say here?




Cargo cult has little to do with pseudoscience and everything to do with the ' GOTG, if you will.
The cargo cult incidence just shows that people will believe what suits them when they do not have enough knowledge to objectively consider the implications of their observations.


Feynman’s point when he was talking about the Cargo cult was that while they were doing what superficially looked like they needed to get the planes to come, they were missing the fundamental and most important parts. This is the same with pseudoscience, while it superficially looks like science, they are missing the most important part, the scientific method.




And funnily the the people who most often use that word are physicists! I'm just a lay person but i think i know BS when i see it and that's pretty much what quantum 'physics' is.


If you think quantum theory is BS, then why are you using a computer, since if that were the case, your computer wouldn’t work. If quantum theory was wrong, semiconductors wouldn’t work. Even Quantum electrodynamics produces prediction that are about as accurate as getting the distance of L.A. and New York correct down to the length of a human hair. Quantum physics is about the most well tested theory in the history of science.




Scientist do not like submitting to peer review, which is why they lie so often in journals and never offer corrections, are just as dogmatic about what butters their bread and put as much emphasis on falsifying the data that ensures a paycheck as any sane person would. Human beings are in my opinion self serving and the scientific method is a IDEAL that is rarely adhered to in practice.


Scientists DO submit to peer review journals. Even after an article is published, researchers still analyze and critique it.

Although sometimes scientists do lie, when they get caught, they get in serious trouble. Here are some examples:
www.thecrimson.com...
www.newscientist.com...

If scientists lied so often just to collect their paycheck, then why would they be willing to come down so hard on those who falsified data? If everyone lied, wouldn’t the labs and universities involved be doing everything they can to sweep it under the rug. And usually in these cases, it is the scientists themselves that catch on to what’s happening. When a CEO or some high ranking employee lies, they get a huge bonus, when a member of the Bush administration lies, they win the metal of freedom, when a scientist lies, they get fired.




They also call LERN pseudoscience and have for the last few thousands of years quit consistently chosen the less descriptive and useful theory over the more descriptive and useful one.


These so called “less descriptive and useful” theories helped us make computers and send people to the moon.

All that site does is provide short paragraphs that really don’t go into any detail at all.

Theories being criticized and scrutinized before supporting evidence comes in is not the same as being suppressed. Such early criticism is a good thing. Criticism helps us identify potential flaws in a theory. And in all those examples, the new theories WERE accepted when the experimental results came out. If you were correct, such acceptance would never have happened.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join