Science vs Pseudoscience - Kevin Korb - Philosophy of Science

Science has a certain common core, especially a reliance on empirical methods of assessing hypotheses. Pseudosciences have little in common but their negation: they are not science.
They reject meaningful empirical assessment in some way or another. Popper proposed a clear demarcation criterion for Science v Rubbish: Falsifiability. However, his criterion has not stood the test of time. There are no definitive arguments against any pseudoscience, any more than against extreme skepticism in general, but there are clear indicators of phoniness.

#philsci #philosophy #science

Many thanks for watching!

[martin]

I would suggest that "Medicine" is better labelled as "Therapeutics" which contains more & different systems than "Medicine" it not only contains Psychotherapies (including strangely enough some body therapies mainly of the neo-reichians) & Alternative/Complementary therapies can generate meta-data about whether any combinations of systems produce synergistic effects.

[martin]

"What cannot be proven empirically is meaningless!" examples given, Metaphysics, Religion, Superstition. But does the statement apply to general categories or can it be applied to specific sub-categories as well, for example Religion as a category contains Meditation, which can (& has) been studied "scientifically".