SCIENCE vs. PSEUDOSCIENCE

[brian-classic]

There is a battle on campus to save academia and I believe it's an epistemological battle starting with the core criteria of what constitutes a scientific claims. Too bad your channel only has one video. I encourage you to do more as we need to bring back the early debates from the transition between philosophy and early science. There is a lot more detail to cover.

[konakeiki]

This is great! Excellent for instruction and remediation!

[annmurry]

I think a third cicle labelled "science fiction" needs to be added since it does not claim to be hard science, gets some things right, has commercial goals, and tries to at least suspend disbelief while knowingly and admittedly stretching things in specific ways.

[zahratalwojood]

Some times pseudoscience said the evidence is my experience

[musicarroll]

Would like to see an additional video on this topic that drills down a little further: science consists of scientific theories. A theory is a collection of propositions, some of which are axiomatic and rest on other theories regarded as science (logic and mathematics, basic physics, e.g.) while others are hypotheses to be tested, while still others are statements of empirical facts (e.g., measurement data). A single scientific theory can contain some hypotheses that turn out to be false or pseudoscientific and others that turn out to be true. A Venn diagram of this situation would be helpful.

[brian-classic]

This older video puts many ideas from the philosophy of science into a great framework. Academia is now being sabotaged by power-hungry politically motivated pseudoscience. The entire academic community needs to take a stronger stance on what is called science and what is not. This is a great educational framework and I'll share it in my classes. Some of Popper's ideas are here. Thanks.

[davidwilkie]

There's a case to be made that because science is a refinement of the organized adoption of practical associations of phenomena, ie based on empirical evidence, that the first approximation to remembering the reason for making the association is theorizing, ..that what is actually in common is the theory and the degrees of reasoning required to satisfy a particular type of acceptance, is "all there is to it".
Additional descriptions to the basic observational processes and experiences called by a categorization title are as insubstantial as fixed conclusions about "discrete" degrees of verifiable certainty. (Scientists are permanently agnostics and "believe" in the Uncertainty Principle (?))

[internetuser]

Thanks for helping me with my homework

[bobleclair]

Sounds like you’re talking about Fauci “ follow the science guy” .

[wimalasenakuruppu]

is monitoring human activities in quantity survaying in construction industry goes upown with science, psudoscience, or bad science

[emmy]

Love is very real. But it can’t be measured with an instrument. Does that mean love doesn’t exist?

[arawiri]

All tested and proven wrong beyond a reasonable doubt ofcourse.

[arawiri]

Earths flat heavens home and if one goes to far they fall off the world.

[livesh]

Science actually both supports and oppose pseudoscience

[Robert_St-Preux]

I am completely on the side of science and see pseudoscience as folklore at best and con artistry at worst. But I have to say, science can be as dogmatic as any pseudoscience or religion, when it forgets itself.

For example, science has sacred cows it cannot bear to part with, or at least examine critically. A specific sacred cow I have in mind is Albert Einstein and his General Theory of Relativity (GR). It is now admitted that there is not nearly enough observable matter in the universe for the universe to behave as it does within General Relativity, and in fact upwards of 90% of the matter for GR to work has to be _dark matter_, this invisible and undetectable substance that Einstein never said a word about. Invisible, undetectable...sounds like a religious and dogmatic idea to me. By the scientific method, shouldn't GR itself be questioned, rather than invent 90% of the universe out of pure imagination, for the sole purpose of retaining GR? But that will never happen, because of our dogmatic, religious, and pseudosciencey inability to consider that something as sacred as Albert Einstein and GR may need some re-evaluation.

Btw, I personally am fine with both Einstein and with unknowns. My concern is that we are consistent, and play by our own rules.

[kemet]

You see 12 stones I see millions of vibration in 12 stone... Your sicence is not even a science.

[martin]

This presentation itself is an example of pseudo-science in that, with some topics science journals won't publish them, not because of unsound methodology, but because the subject matter itself is deemed to be "non-science", also science driven by evidence alone & not by cultural or commercial goals, what world do you live in? "Science is excited & happy about peer reviews", there is no such person as "Science" it cannot be excited & happy, you are falling prey to the distortion of personification. Also I doesn't see any citations of research papers backing up any of these opinions. Mr A is too simplistic by far, in fact I would go further & call him pseudo-scientific.

[btekwindsolar]

You can totally apply this pseudo science definition to climate change. Incredible.

[MrWolynski]

Right off the bat this video is false. Rigorous peer review is not necessary to do science. You can do science on a deserted island, by yourself. Starting off, not impressed.