(an extract from my SFF blog):
While on this subject, there was an amusing item by Amanda Gefter in New Scientist magazine (28/2/09) concerning how to spot attempts to disguise religiously-inspired (or other unscientific) work as science. Samples of some key phrases to look for:
"Darwinism": scientists rarely use the term – they use "evolution" instead
"irreducibly complex": implying that it couldn't have evolved from something simpler
"academic freedom": when appealed to, usually means the freedom to teach creationism
"common sense": when appealed to; science works on theories based on evidence and may reach conclusions entirely opposed to common sense.
"scientific materialism": implying that the immaterial exists
"quantum physics" in an article which is clearly not about physics ("quantum" being the latest mystical buzz-word to give apparent respectability to bonkers notions)
There's more, but this gives the general idea!
The trouble with these creationists using these terms all the time is that they are becoming mainstream, I was watching "Darwin's Dangerous Idea" a few days ago words 'Darwinism' 'Darwinist' and 'evolutionist' were used quite a few times.
Dawkins uses "Darwinism" quite often in the selfish gene.
The word "allopathy" as a description of current medicine is a pretty good indication that the person using it has an "alternative medicine" agenda.
Of course, one could counter that the use of the words "quack" and "woo" are a pretty sure sign the person has a skeptical agenda.Originally Posted by Mojo
This is a Marxist term - it is the thing that Marxist-Leninists describe as the basis for viewing their philosophy as a science. It combines the axiom of the dialectic with the idea of 'historical materialism' to create the theory."scientific materialism": implying that the immaterial exists
It's utter bollocks of course.
When you see the term "open minded" you're usually expected to be anything but.
In much the same was as a 'humble opinion' usually isn't...
Don't forget 'skeptical' to describe any explanation for a weird event that doesn't include the paranormal.
...but I think quite carefully to describe application of the conceptual idea outside evolutionary biology?
Snip: great article. The problem I find is that actually we really are reduced to this; pseudoscience is a subjective reaction, and we know it when we see it, but there is no useful definition available. I've just been rereading the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on pseudoscience and the demarcation debate for a thing I'm doing on Philosophy of Science, and it is incredibly difficult to find a formal definition. I can't post links, but google the bolded terms and you'll find the article.
Anyway nice list. :)
cj x
Today's 'pseudoscience' could just become tomorrow's science. Of course, most new ideas that are ridiculed probably deserve it. However, as I've never been able to define pseudoscience to my own satisfaction, I don't usually use the word. Instead, I examine every new idea as it comes up and apply a simple test: does it (a) explain all the stuff the current theory does and (b) explain anything the current theory doesn't?
I find that many new ideas tend to concentrate on (b) while forgetting about (a) and that's where they fall down. Explaining an anomaly is fine so long as it still explains 'normal' too!
Something is pseudoscience, not because of the factual statements it makes (rightly or wrongly) but because of the methodology. Studying any subject, even something like homeopathy or astrology, using evidence and the proper scientific method, is science. Studying perfectly good scientific ideas, like quantum entanglement, say, with reference to subjective experiences, auras, telepathy, etc., is pseudoscience.
Nope, I still don't get it. Psychology studies use subjective experiences. Is that pseudoscience?
But the subjective experiences are the things being studied ... they aren't being used as evidence for some other alleged physical phenomenon.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks