The Falacy of PsuedoScience

*Mods please feel free to move this thread to the appropiate forum*


I recently got into a discssion here on ATS on this thread

www.abovetopsecret.com...

and it got me thinking about PsuedoScience and the Falacies that come with it.

As a general rule PsuedoScience will string together a few facts and try and concoct an outlandish theory out of those facts, until breaking point infact. Some PsuedoScience topics are downright laughable and other's suck people right in, which then leads that person on a wild goose chase of facts and misinterpretation of those facts in order to support a said idea.

The common factor of PsuedoScience is that they say that "normal" science cannot be applied to it and that people who follow scientific method with rigour are blinding themselves to the reality of what the Psuedo Scientists are trying to convey.

There are many cases of PsuedoScience on the ATS forums and it has it's place, the motto of ATS is Deny Ignorance yet a lot of people peddle nonsense and in turn create a lot of ignorance in turn. I know that these kind of threads are always going to be here on ATS and that we will have the usual back and forth discussions that ensue, the Psuedo Scientists keep repeating the same few facts that they try and peice their wild theories together and all the time never actually trying to prove their ideas.

I think we should give them an open platform, if they choose to ACTUALLY prove their idea's and do it in a scientific way!

This is a quick look at what I mean, in regards to Scientific Method


Scientific Method

Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.

Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methods of obtaining knowledge. Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses. These steps must be repeatable, to predict future results.

So going along these lines if anyone who dabbles in PsuedoScience would like to use a Scientific Method in order to prove what they are saying then I for one as I am sure many others here on ATS would welcome that.

Stop the ignorance and fear mongering and let's all stick to the facts.

Totally agree with this, I get fed up trying to have a discussion with people who claim because someone has big eyes must be proof they are an alien hybrid, or HAARP caused the Japan disaster, they never provide the math or reasoning just a bunch of non related things that happen to have something in common to link it all together... useless.

I knew this thread would be conveniently ignored...

I think most of the psuedo science is the mainstream.

without PsuedoScience the truth would be nothing more than what everyone says

So PsuedoScience is needed in order to present the truth.

The truth is ongoing and PsuedoScience allows the non thruth to be discriminated

I think PsuedoScience is needed to create a balance

Yes, you have to consider that there are many people with paranoid personality disorder around here, there are many people that want to believe so desperately, others that come here to validate their alternative religious/spiritual beliefs. But the real reason that all of us come here is to relate to others and know that we are not alone.

Unfortunately, this opens the window for a lot of uninformed, ignorant to the subject, paranoid, thirsty for doom or plot, gullible people to validate each other. That is when the "deny ignorance" motto falls apart, as a lot of threads devolve into the "true until irreparably proven otherwise" mentality. It is worse when many don't read beyond the first post of a thread to only post a reply to the OP with a kudos and then leave with their beliefs reinforced.

So that is a definite no, ATS doesn't use the scientific method for the majority of its subjects.

I think you are talking more about sensational pseudoscience than you are all pseudoscience. It is something of a broad category, of which the likes of psychology might be considered a part.

I certainly agree with you though. Sound logic and scientific reasoning are very much lacking in the arguments of many a thread here.

Here we go again. Are you a member of The Cult of the Church of Science? That's when scientists believe in the scientific method so strongly, that they lose their objectivity and flatly refuse to look at new data that may disprove their pet theory. The science becomes a religion. This happens top scientists all the time.

Here's the problem with your Scientific Method.1. It's only applicable for the knowledge and technology at the time. 2. often times those same observations can be arrived at by different methods making the theory lose credibility - yet, all are not discovered.

Quantum Physics gives us great examples where conventional physics laws seem to break down. How could that happen if the laws of Physics were absolute? Simple. Physics is Not made of absolute laws.. only those that appear so at the time and under certain conditions of the observer.

In Truth, Science Knows Nothing. There are No known Facts. - In many respects science is thus even more like a religion. Science itself becomes... A Pseudo Science. (Ha!)

Many of the things that some Pseudo Science claims may be real indeed.. we just cannot measure them with our present understanding of knowledge or current scientific method.. this does not make these things any Less True - only that Science cannot explain it. This is just like how modern Laws of Physics seem to not be able to explain some aspects of physics at the quantum level.

I propose we simply do not know and may never know.. but to state unequivocally that all pseudo science is fraud just because your current scientific method cannot explain it, is fallacy and you are not an objective seeker of Truth - as we are taught in school a scientists should be.

My personal opinion on mainstream science:

It's the religion for people that don't buy into religion. That is, it limits peoples ideas of what is really possible, keeps people in their small boxes and more easily controlled. Not to say that all science is BS or that all pseudoscience isn't, but it depends on what level of science you are talking about. Newtonian physics is real and valid and observable however the rules of Newtonian physics break down when you start talking about quantum physics, which is also real and valid. Which system of physics is correct? They both are depending on the level and phenomenon you are discussing. So, while there are some pretty crazy sounding pseudo-scientific things out there who's to say that they won't be proven correct in 10 or 20 years.

I find it funny that the same people who make outrageous claims usually say that "TPTB" are lying to us, not only just that, but it usually fits into their pseudo-scientific claims.

So if the real scientists are always lying to us.... What does that say about the non-scientists? Sure;y they would never lie I guess...

I mean, if just anyone can string together claims that have no proof behind them, then the standards of their conclusions are pretty high?

Seriously, multiple times I've dug into an outlandish theory and find fraud or someone making money selling books and doing lectures and speaking engagements.

Selling gold cause the world is going to end, selling old foreclosed bunkers cause the world is going to end, colloidal silver, detox pills, books on how to survive, used radiation gear from the 1960's.

The worst part is the people peddling the crap associated with the doomsday scenarios, is often items that have been dumped by the legitimate markets because they weren't selling.

Most of the doomsday rhetoric is just marketing.

Originally posted by guessing
without PsuedoScience the truth would be nothing more than what everyone says

So PsuedoScience is needed in order to present the truth.

The truth is ongoing and PsuedoScience allows the non thruth to be discriminated

I think PsuedoScience is needed to create a balance

As the OP said, good science or 'truth' if you want to call it that, is just findings that are done per the scientific method. You don't need pseudo-science to prove the scientific method. The proof is in the pudding.

And just because scientists follow method, does not mean they can't think outside the box.

Originally posted by Resentedhalo08
Stop the ignorance and fear mongering and let's all stick to the facts.

Woo woo. The "I'm logical and factual and you're not" bit again. Yawn. Ironic that since you failed to make a compelling argument with little fanfare in that thread referenced in your OP you would clone your reply excerpt and start a new thread about it here.

Personally, I like to consider fantastic things which is why I frequent ATS. I've seen the (in your parlance) PsuedoIntellectuals pontificate about truth and logic and the 'scientific method' ad nauseum as reigning supreme and denying anything which is not easily proven in a lab. That OP clearly stated it was a concept / theory but you just hammered him for not being able to prove it. And by the way, it is spelled fallacy Mr. Labcoat

To quote Einstein: "Imagination is more important than knowledge."

reply to post by kinda kurious

To quote Einstein: "Imagination is more important than knowledge."

It is too bad that with all the pseudo-science Einstein was doing he was never able to find Nibiru.

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
In Truth, Science Knows Nothing. There are No known Facts. - In many respects science is thus even more like a religion. Science itself becomes... A Pseudo Science. (Ha!)

I propose we simply do not know and may never know.. but to state unequivocally that all pseudo science is fraud just because your current scientific method cannot explain it, is fallacy and you are not an objective seeker of Truth - as we are taught in school a scientists should be.

Quoted for agreement!

Thank you all for your replies.

To answer a few things, No I am not part of the rigid science "brigade", who uses science as their religion. I am not afraid to look outside of the box, but when doing so LOGIC is always a good friend to have, otherwise a person is just shooting in the dark and never actually getting anywhere with their ideas.

I'm all for new idea's, but a lot of people here on ATS when presenting those idea's seem to lose all sense of logic in order to make their "theory" work. This is not a good grounding for reasonable thought, a theory is nothing more than a hypothesis until backed up by solid facts, which can then begin to build up a solid theory.

Then the scientific method can be applied.

As for the member who pointed out my spelling mistake of Fallacy, I didn't know that I was at spelling school and the grammar police were out in full force, I happen to type quite fast and inevietably spelling mistakes will occur.

Originally posted by Resentedhalo08
As for the member who pointed out my spelling mistake of Fallacy, I didn't know that I was at spelling school and the grammar police were out in full force, I happen to type quite fast and inevietably spelling mistakes will occur.

Respectfully:

Thanks for the elucidation and sorry if I came off as harsh. Nobody's perfect and we all make misteaks.
(Especially me)

I recently encounter a rather stubborn poster who felt the world could be defined in strict terms of back and white. But there are ALWAYS shades of gray. I too have a keen respect for facts but I'd hate for those members who like to present seemingly far fetched notions scared off for fear of consternation.

Once again, I apologize for hair trigger reply. I should have just gone to bed.

reply to post by kinda kurious


No problem

Yes you are correct, things are never black and white and there are area's of grey

It is these shades of grey that PsuedoScience is usually found, but I don't see any reason why such idea's cannot be fleshed out and backed up with facts.

All good science started out like this and then the theories were refined and backed up with facts, experiments and observations etc, this is what seem's lacking here on ATS, people who present these idea's often take leave of their senses and spout utter nonsense in order to try and validate their "theories".

All good scientists had crackpot theories, but they know when to let them go if they cannot prove that idea to be true.

The Falacy of PsuedoScience

First I imagine you are referring to " Fallacy".

Second: You have used quite a few fallacies in your post and have not named one fallacy regarding pseudoscience. Begging the Question will not validate the points you are trying to make and establishing a premise ( the title of your thread ) while using begging the question fallacies, makes you appear to be describing yourself rather than pseudoscience.

It would help if you list some pseudosciences and scientists. Think hard science and soft science.. lol
Is Psychology a soft science.... a pseudoscience? what about philosophy, is it a science? Geometry? Let's consider Theoretical Physics. Quantum Physics is...?

Calling a field or work pseudo- is labeling it "Fake".. false or not valid. That is dangerous and borders on old fashioned witch hunts. Isn't EVERYTHING a science these days? Think politics = political science.

Seriously man your post needs clarification. It doesn't establish your idea well at all. well... unless your idea is ridicule. Yes I Know! That can either be humor or yet another fallacy, called appealing to ridicule! What a world!

Originally posted by Resentedhalo08

As a general rule PsuedoScience will string together a few facts and try and concoct an outlandish theory out of those facts, until breaking point infact. Some PsuedoScience topics are downright laughable and other's suck people right in, which then leads that person on a wild goose chase of facts and misinterpretation of those facts in order to support a said idea.

Affirmative. That's an appeal to ridicule. Very good Resentedhalo08! Hey! Want to chalk that one up as humor instead?

Appeal to Ridicule ( fallacy in which ridicule or mockery is substituted for evidence in an "argument." )

Originally posted by Resentedhalo08

This is a quick look at what I mean, in regards to Scientific Method

Is that how Malthusian/Evolution and Eugenics did it? Is that how Lobotomies was policy in so many countries... or was that merely political science? Wait... ah.... is politics a science?

Originally posted by Resentedhalo08

There are many cases of PsuedoScience on the ATS forums

Resentedhalo08, you didn't list or name even ONE pseudo science.. not one "fake" science. Are any "Forums" a pseudoscience? Name them! You ask to stop the ignorance after repeatedly posting errors in reasoning yourself... aka using logical fallacies.

begging the question ( simply assuming that the conclusion is true (directly or indirectly) in the premises does not constitute evidence for that conclusion )... especially when using straw man fallacies to make your conclusions.

Resentedhalo08... If you want to stick to facts ( whatever that means ), remember this. Information isn't facts. Facts aren't Knowledge and knowledge isn't wisdom. You have freewill man... YOU CHOOSE.

Wait! What science deals with your freewill? This is confusing! Thanks a lot Resentedhalo08!!! grrrrrrrrrrrrr wait! Maybe it's some pseudoscience???

Is everything a science? Our readers want to know!

reply to post by Serafine


I feel that you have somewhat misunderstood the reason for this thread.

This is not an attempt to ridicule those within PsuedoScience but a call for them to prove what they are saying, in effect I am on the side of PsuedoScience in wanting them to have a solid basis for their ideas, there seem's to be a lot of ignorant PsuedoScience based threads here on ATS which peddle ignorance.

I wasn't speaking about any specifc branch of PsuedoScience in particular but as a general whole.

People just need to be careful when they see a 'study' that claims to be science based coming to any specific conclusion without reading the study itself and really understanding it's design. I have worked in the sciences for 20 plus years, I set up studies and review results for a living, I am quite aware that study design is absolutely critical to coming to proper conclusions, and that often studies are set up mainly to try and show what it is that the researcher wants to show often in a way that slants the data giving false impressions.

A good typical example IMO is the farce of a 'study' put out by National Geographic mag that suposedly 'looked into' some claims regarding 9-11. I was mailed a video by someone who basically said "see they *scientifcally disproved* much of the challenges to the officical 9-11 story its all right there in their 'study'. But when I viewed the CD I absolutely couldn't see how ANYONE with even a slight degree of reasoning ability could conclude what appeared to me as very poorly designed high school science lab projects, and that it proved or even remotely suggested their conclusions. But what was important to the person that gave me the CD was that someone who *appeared* to be an *authority* on the matter did a study that *appeared* to be 'good science' and that was enough for them.

This blind naive trust is absolutely dangerous for anyone who wants to get to the bottom of things, it allows those who attempt to control data for political and financial reasons to so easily manipulate the herd thinking. Just trot out someone 'offical looking' that tows the party line and chants the offical mantra, while labeling anyone else who asks real questions a 'tin foil hatter' etc. or 'un-American' and watch the sheep get in line, sadly I see this type of thinking all around me, ironically in people who appear reasonably intelligent, but IMO hopelessly naive.