Philosophy Now Forum

Melchior wrote:You also need to distinguish between good science and bad science.

Mel,
Isn't that the point of this discussion? Bad science is pseudo-science. Don't let mere phraseology get in the way of figuring out what's going on.

Greylorn

Greylorn Ell wrote:If you were smart enough to make it through 9th-grade English class, you'd have used the plural of "believe."

Greylorn

Third person singular.

Greylorn Ell wrote:...
Pseudo-science is science that promotes evidence that matches its theories/beliefs (e.g. Darwinism, Big-Bang cosmology, the Standard Model) while ignoring contrary evidence. ...

Or 'God' forbid 'Beon Theory'.

Greylorn Ell wrote:

Melchior wrote:You also need to distinguish between good science and bad science.

Mel,
Isn't that the point of this discussion? Bad science is pseudo-science. Don't let mere phraseology get in the way of figuring out what's going on.

Greylorn

No, they are not the same. 'Bad science' can be merely sloppy, with poorly constructed experiments, uncritical collection and selection of data, etc. Pseudoscience is something else altogether.

uwot wrote:

Greylorn Ell wrote:If you were smart enough to make it through 9th-grade English class, you'd have used the plural of "believe."

Greylorn

Third person singular.

Uwot,

Thanks for the correction to my correction. I've forgotten the jargon! --Greylorn

Melchior wrote:

Greylorn Ell wrote:

Melchior wrote:You also need to distinguish between good science and bad science.

Mel,
Isn't that the point of this discussion? Bad science is pseudo-science. Don't let mere phraseology get in the way of figuring out what's going on.

Greylorn

No, they are not the same. 'Bad science' can be merely sloppy, with poorly constructed experiments, uncritical collection and selection of data, etc. Pseudoscience is something else altogether.

Mel,

You are absolutely right Thank you! --Greylorn

Greylorn Ell wrote:
You are absolutely right Thank you! --Greylorn

Pseudoscience would something like purple energy plates, which New Age people believe have special powers.

http://www.purpleharmonyplates.com/

http://www.tools4transformation.net/purpleplates.html

Not to mention biorhythms.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biorhythm

Melchior wrote:

Greylorn Ell wrote:
You are absolutely right Thank you! --Greylorn

Pseudoscience would something like purple energy plates, which New Age people believe have special powers.

http://www.purpleharmonyplates.com/

http://www.tools4transformation.net/purpleplates.html

Not to mention biorhythms.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biorhythm

Mel,

After living way too long running my life according to established belief systems I extracted myself, first from Catholicism, then from the pseudo-scientific beliefs of my primary developmental time (1960+15 years). This included a physics degree and subsequent work in astronomy and biotech. These developing fields of science offered plenty of opportunities to explore the beliefs and opinions of real scientists.

Out of that I learned to be open to alternative ideas, to seriously explore them. I did not want to be one of the dozens of experimenters who had observed the early evidence for x-rays but dismissed them as "artifacts," unlike Roentgen, the official discoverer of x-rays, who explored. So, I have a "purple plate." Bought it about 30 years ago, found zero effects and no reason to pursue their proclaimed potential. IMO purple plates have no useful physical-level function except to make a few bucks for the aluminum anodizing industry and some new-age marketers.

Nonetheless, official science has proved the placebo effect. If someone is seriously convinced that a purple plate will cure his problems, it just might do that. Not because it is purple, but because of his beliefs. Were I in that business, I'd use a teal-colored plate, if such plates could be generated from an anodizing process.

I explored New Age bullshit and attended more meetings populated by gullible fat divorcees than you'd want to know about, and passed up many opportunities that were obvious even to me. New Age metaphysics is, IMO, bullshit. You'd not know anything about it unless you had also personally investigated that nonsense, so I'm surprised that you would insert any references to that religious nonsense into this thread. New-age crap has not yet risen to the level of pseudo-science.

You seem to have some difficulty distinguishing one opinion-set from another. Inserting comments on biorhythms into the same context as new age religion is incongruous and stupid. You must be another pinheaded liberal, the kind of nit who distorts and conflates information to make his point.

Let's get clear. Purple plates are not science, not even pseudo-science. They are new-age religious nonsense. Obviously you and I have studied that crap. You've chosen to conflate your goofy studies with science, while I've simply dismissed the nonsense.

Biorhythm studies are different. They represent empirical data. There is nothing that I'd call a legitimate theory behind the studies. Nonetheless, they work at the statistical level. I first learned of them from a man who'd obtained a summa-cum degree in psychology from a major university, who due to adverse circumstances, found himself working in a meat processing plant as a "boner," a guy who uses very sharp knives to separate animal flesh from bones. The day "J.H." applied for his job, coming into the building he was met by a guy clutching his bleeding belly after stabbing himself.

J.H. had obtained his entire knowledge about biorhythms from a one-hour class in one of his how-to-be-a-shrink courses. After learning his new trade he conducted an informal (i.e. non-scientific) study of injury dates vs. biorhythms. Everyone there thought he was full of shit until one day when a meat-saw guy (most dangerous job in the place) who had been working fifteen years without a band-aid cut off his hand on a triple-biorhythm-crossing day. J.H's advice was implemented. The injury rate was cut in half within a year and he moved on to management.

There is more statistical evidence for the validity of the biorhythm paradigm than there is for Darwinism. Why the difference?

1. There is no theory behind the empirical biorhythm observations. There is a shitty theory behind Darwinism.

2. Observations of biorhythmic events are statistically significant and reproducible at that level. Observations of mutations predicted by Darwinism fail to produce results.

3. Therefore biorhythm stuff is pseudo-science and Darwinism is REAL GOOD SCIENCE. Can any of you "philosophers" figure out what's wrong with this picture?

Greylorn

Greylorn Ell wrote:...
Observations of mutations predicted by Darwinism fail to produce results.

Pardon? What mutations did Darwin predict?

Greylorn Ell wrote:
I explored New Age bullshit and attended more meetings populated by gullible fat divorcees than you'd want to know about, and passed up many opportunities that were obvious even to me.

Greylorn

What do you mean?

Middle-aged divorced women are the bane of western culture.

Arising_uk wrote:

Greylorn Ell wrote:...
Observations of mutations predicted by Darwinism fail to produce results.

Pardon? What mutations did Darwin predict?

Darwin himself did not predict any specific mutations. He merely claimed to explain, in a broad, hand-waving way, how the observed mutations might have occurred and been retained.

The discovery of DNA molecules finally gave his followers, the Darwinists, a mechanism for these mutations and an opportunity to put that mechanism to the test of real, scientific experiments. These failed to support Darwinist and neo-Darwinian theories.

I was careful to use the word "Darwinism" rather than "Darwin" in hopes of not confusing Darwinist pinheads, but alas, pinheads seem to live a life of persistent confusion, conflation, and fundamental stupidity. That's why I refer to them as pinheads. Is there a politically correct term I should be using to help them think that they are geniuses, so as not to damage their self esteem? You would know.

Greylorn

Melchior wrote:

Greylorn Ell wrote:
I explored New Age bullshit and attended more meetings populated by gullible fat divorcees than you'd want to know about, and passed up many opportunities that were obvious even to me.

Greylorn

What do you mean?

Middle-aged divorced women are the bane of western culture.

Mel,

Depends upon what you mean by culture.

I'm reminded of the story about the Lone Ranger and Tonto taking a wrong turn and finding themselves chased to the terminus of a box canyon, by angry Apaches. The Ranger turns to his Indian partner and says, "This seems to be the end of our road, old friend. We are surrounded by Indians."

Says Tonto, "What you mean 'we,' Kemosaby?

Middle-aged women in general define Western culture. They are the nitwits who voted for B.O. twice, and who will vote in the overwhelming majority for that stupid and filthy old sow the Democrats are putting up for the next round of political monopoly.

Middle-aged women cannot be the bane of the culture they've defined. They've done their job, that of destroying the culture for which men have fought and died, then coming home tired and hungry, given away (like Esau, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_and_Esau) for a bowl of porridge.

Greylorn

This article relates:

http://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2015/0 ... st-science

PhilX

Greylorn Ell wrote:

Arising_uk wrote:

Greylorn Ell wrote:...
Observations of mutations predicted by Darwinism fail to produce results.

Pardon? What mutations did Darwin predict?

Darwin himself did not predict any specific mutations. He merely claimed to explain, in a broad, hand-waving way, how the observed mutations might have occurred and been retained.

The discovery of DNA molecules finally gave his followers, the Darwinists, a mechanism for these mutations and an opportunity to put that mechanism to the test of real, scientific experiments. These failed to support Darwinist and neo-Darwinian theories.

I was careful to use the word "Darwinism" rather than "Darwin" in hopes of not confusing Darwinist pinheads, but alas, pinheads seem to live a life of persistent confusion, conflation, and fundamental stupidity. That's why I refer to them as pinheads. Is there a politically correct term I should be using to help them think that they are geniuses, so as not to damage their self esteem? You would know.

Greylorn

The most blatant 'pin-head' around here is you, going by your own definition.

Greylorn Ell wrote:

Melchior wrote:

Greylorn Ell wrote:
I explored New Age bullshit and attended more meetings populated by gullible fat divorcees than you'd want to know about, and passed up many opportunities that were obvious even to me.

Greylorn

What do you mean?

Middle-aged divorced women are the bane of western culture.

Mel,

Depends upon what you mean by culture.

I'm reminded of the story about the Lone Ranger and Tonto taking a wrong turn and finding themselves chased to the terminus of a box canyon, by angry Apaches. The Ranger turns to his Indian partner and says, "This seems to be the end of our road, old friend. We are surrounded by Indians."

Says Tonto, "What you mean 'we,' Kemosaby?

Middle-aged women in general define Western culture. They are the nitwits who voted for B.O. twice, and who will vote in the overwhelming majority for that stupid and filthy old sow the Democrats are putting up for the next round of political monopoly.

Middle-aged women cannot be the bane of the culture they've defined. They've done their job, that of destroying the culture for which men have fought and died, then coming home tired and hungry, given away (like Esau, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_and_Esau) for a bowl of porridge.

Greylorn

I can't stand them Look at the mess in the New York prison!