A lot of you people seem to fail at distinguishing science from pseudoscience, so I decided to draw a diagram for you: [IMG]http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c278/proc_/Science.png[/IMG] This is how science works. It does not really matter how you form a hypothesis, but after that it is very definite what needs to be done in order to be called science.

A lot of you people seem to fail at distinguishing science from pseudoscience, so I decided to draw a diagram for you:

This is how science works. It does not really matter how you form a hypothesis, but after that it is very definite what needs to be done in order to be called science.

[I]>> Stickified[/I] Well done Anti. I suppose I'm going to unlock this topic now and allow some discussion to take place.

>> Stickified

Well done Anti. I suppose I'm going to unlock this topic now and allow some discussion to take place.

Antisleep, what are some observed examples of "pseudoscience" that you have seen? (this is an honest question, not a smartass coment. lol)

Antisleep, what are some observed examples of "pseudoscience" that you have seen? (this is an honest question, not a smartass coment. lol)

Wasnt't this exact same thing posted back on v4? I remember reading the SAME chart.

Wasnt't this exact same thing posted back on v4? I remember reading the SAME chart.

I like how [Taught in Science Class] -> [Practical Application] I can sleep well knowing that the engineers of today can understand how to line up three capacitors, each having 15 µFarads, in a manner so as to have a net total of 10 µFarads, instead of going out and spending 30 cents for the 10 µFarad capacitor.

I like how
[Taught in Science Class] -> [Practical Application]
I can sleep well knowing that the engineers of today can understand how to line up three capacitors, each having 15 µFarads, in a manner so as to have a net total of 10 µFarads, instead of going out and spending 30 cents for the 10 µFarad capacitor.

[quote=midget_man_66]Antisleep, what are some observed examples of "pseudoscience" that you have seen? (this is an honest question, not a smartass coment. lol)[/quote] These threads from the first index page either have a pseudoscience premise, or are loaded with it in discussion: http://www.staredit.net/topic/2020/ http://www.staredit.net/topic/1263/ http://www.staredit.net/topic/1208/ http://www.staredit.net/topic/1037/ http://www.staredit.net/topic/1275/ http://www.staredit.net/topic/1500/ http://www.staredit.net/topic/750/ It is bad, almost like watching children argue about the existence of Santa.

Quote from midget_man_66

Antisleep, what are some observed examples of "pseudoscience" that you have seen? (this is an honest question, not a smartass coment. lol)

These threads from the first index page either have a pseudoscience premise, or are loaded with it in discussion:
http://www.staredit.net/topic/2020/
http://www.staredit.net/topic/1263/
http://www.staredit.net/topic/1208/
http://www.staredit.net/topic/1037/
http://www.staredit.net/topic/1275/
http://www.staredit.net/topic/1500/
http://www.staredit.net/topic/750/

It is bad, almost like watching children argue about the existence of Santa.

Also, this is not the place for absurd hypothetical questions.

Also, this is not the place for absurd hypothetical questions.

AntiSleep, when did SEN hire you? I do not mean to imply that your points about what should and shouldn't be discussed in this forum are either valid or invalid (they are certainly valid to be debated upon), but your manner of doing so (authoritatively dictating policy) is not your perogative. As for actually debating your point, I wouldn't say to disallow psuedoscience from entering this forum. I don't think either me or IP intended for that when creating the forum. Yes, you can use the name of the forum as a basis for such a policy, but bear in mind that "Politics, (Psuedo)science, Religion" is a long and stupid name for a forum. Certainly, outrageously silly topics should be moved and false claims of science should be corrected, but to extinguish psuedoscientific discussion seems extreme.

AntiSleep, when did SEN hire you? I do not mean to imply that your points about what should and shouldn't be discussed in this forum are either valid or invalid (they are certainly valid to be debated upon), but your manner of doing so (authoritatively dictating policy) is not your perogative.

As for actually debating your point, I wouldn't say to disallow psuedoscience from entering this forum. I don't think either me or IP intended for that when creating the forum. Yes, you can use the name of the forum as a basis for such a policy, but bear in mind that "Politics, (Psuedo)science, Religion" is a long and stupid name for a forum. Certainly, outrageously silly topics should be moved and false claims of science should be corrected, but to extinguish psuedoscientific discussion seems extreme.

[quote=Mini Moose 2707]AntiSleep, when did SEN hire you? I do not mean to imply that your points about what should and shouldn't be discussed in this forum are either valid or invalid (they are certainly valid to be debated upon), but your manner of doing so (authoritatively dictating policy) is not your perogative. As for actually debating your point, I wouldn't say to disallow psuedoscience from entering this forum. I don't think either me or IP intended for that when creating the forum. Yes, you can use the name of the forum as a basis for such a policy, but bear in mind that "Politics, (Psuedo)science, Religion" is a long and stupid name for a forum. Certainly, outrageously silly topics should be moved and false claims of science should be corrected, but to extinguish psuedoscientific discussion seems extreme.[/quote] His point is to let people know what science is. :P It's more of a guideline that says don't try to pass of psuedoscience as science, it's not a banning of it from the subforum. (read how he words his post) I find the diagram to be a helpful pinned topic, being an appropriate representation something so important to the discussions in this subforum. Then I figured I would unlock the topic to allow it to be more of a discussion than just an accepted rule.

Quote from Mini Moose 2707

AntiSleep, when did SEN hire you? I do not mean to imply that your points about what should and shouldn't be discussed in this forum are either valid or invalid (they are certainly valid to be debated upon), but your manner of doing so (authoritatively dictating policy) is not your perogative.

As for actually debating your point, I wouldn't say to disallow psuedoscience from entering this forum. I don't think either me or IP intended for that when creating the forum. Yes, you can use the name of the forum as a basis for such a policy, but bear in mind that "Politics, (Psuedo)science, Religion" is a long and stupid name for a forum. Certainly, outrageously silly topics should be moved and false claims of science should be corrected, but to extinguish psuedoscientific discussion seems extreme.

His point is to let people know what science is. It's more of a guideline that says don't try to pass of psuedoscience as science, it's not a banning of it from the subforum. (read how he words his post) I find the diagram to be a helpful pinned topic, being an appropriate representation something so important to the discussions in this subforum. Then I figured I would unlock the topic to allow it to be more of a discussion than just an accepted rule.

[QUOTE=Antisleep]Also, this is not the place for absurd hypothetical questions.[/QUOTE] Absurd hypothetical questions are one of the most important ways of learning. (Thought Experiments are very useful in many fields, and they are simply absurd hypothetical questions.) As for the topic in there that is mine, I didn't really understand exactly how it worked, and had little hope to convince anyone else. But Brownian motion that is utilized to create a directive force was at least worth mentioning in my opinion.

Quote from Antisleep

Also, this is not the place for absurd hypothetical questions.

Absurd hypothetical questions are one of the most important ways of learning. (Thought Experiments are very useful in many fields, and they are simply absurd hypothetical questions.)

As for the topic in there that is mine, I didn't really understand exactly how it worked, and had little hope to convince anyone else. But Brownian motion that is utilized to create a directive force was at least worth mentioning in my opinion.

There is an equivalent impulse when the ratchet catches, and it is carried through to the substrate. Thought experiments are useful when extrapolating the consequences of a hypothesis, but I do not see what bacon has to do with nuclear physics.

There is an equivalent impulse when the ratchet catches, and it is carried through to the substrate. Thought experiments are useful when extrapolating the consequences of a hypothesis, but I do not see what bacon has to do with nuclear physics.

You didn't draw that chart. Plagiariser. Also that chart is not correct. A new hypothesis doesn't need to make new predictions, so long as it fits with current evidence. e.g., the Plum pudding model of the atom vs. the Bohr-Rutherford model.

You didn't draw that chart. Plagiariser. Also that chart is not correct.

A new hypothesis doesn't need to make new predictions, so long as it fits with current evidence. e.g., the Plum pudding model of the atom vs. the Bohr-Rutherford model.

Um, I made that chart with omnigraffle, and the bohr model predicted emission and absorption spectra that the plum pudding model could not, then there was the alpha particle scattering....

Um, I made that chart with omnigraffle, and the bohr model predicted emission and absorption spectra that the plum pudding model could not, then there was the alpha particle scattering....

It didn't at the time of it's proposal.

It didn't at the time of it's proposal.

Bohr knew about emission spectra from the start, and it wasn't until much later at the Copenhagen interpretation that the Bohr model was accepted on a widespread basis.

Bohr knew about emission spectra from the start, and it wasn't until much later at the Copenhagen interpretation that the Bohr model was accepted on a widespread basis.

[quote=AntiSleep] It is bad, almost like watching children argue about the existence of Santa.[/quote] Yea, because Santa does exist so there's no point in arguing about it. If this sentence is true, then Santa Claus exists. Curry paradox ftw.

Quote from AntiSleep

It is bad, almost like watching children argue about the existence of Santa.

Yea, because Santa does exist so there's no point in arguing about it.

If this sentence is true, then Santa Claus exists.

Curry paradox ftw.

[quote=devilesk][quote=AntiSleep] It is bad, almost like watching children argue about the existence of Santa.[/quote] Yea, because Santa does exist so there's no point in arguing about it. If this sentence is true, then Santa Claus exists. Curry paradox ftw.[/quote] A premise that proves everything true proves nothing true. ;)

Quote from devilesk

Quote from AntiSleep

It is bad, almost like watching children argue about the existence of Santa.

Yea, because Santa does exist so there's no point in arguing about it.

If this sentence is true, then Santa Claus exists.

Curry paradox ftw.

A premise that proves everything true proves nothing true.

[quote=Dapperdan][quote=devilesk][quote=AntiSleep] It is bad, almost like watching children argue about the existence of Santa.[/quote] Yea, because Santa does exist so there's no point in arguing about it. If this sentence is true, then Santa Claus exists. Curry paradox ftw.[/quote] A premise that proves everything true proves nothing true. ;)[/quote] No.

Quote from Dapperdan

Quote from devilesk

Quote from AntiSleep

It is bad, almost like watching children argue about the existence of Santa.

Yea, because Santa does exist so there's no point in arguing about it.

If this sentence is true, then Santa Claus exists.

Curry paradox ftw.

A premise that proves everything true proves nothing true.

No.

[quote=devilesk][quote=AntiSleep] It is bad, almost like watching children argue about the existence of Santa.[/quote] Yea, because Santa does exist so there's no point in arguing about it. If this sentence is true, then Santa Claus exists. Curry paradox ftw.[/quote] A sentence with two independent clauses, one true, and one untrue does not evaluate true... So that's not a paradox at all. Unless you meant the second sentence to be self-referential. In which case, ya. But why did you bring it up? :p

Quote from devilesk

Quote from AntiSleep

It is bad, almost like watching children argue about the existence of Santa.

Yea, because Santa does exist so there's no point in arguing about it.

If this sentence is true, then Santa Claus exists.

Curry paradox ftw.

A sentence with two independent clauses, one true, and one untrue does not evaluate true... So that's not a paradox at all.

Unless you meant the second sentence to be self-referential. In which case, ya. But why did you bring it up?

[quote=Syphon][quote=devilesk][quote=AntiSleep] It is bad, almost like watching children argue about the existence of Santa.[/quote] Yea, because Santa does exist so there's no point in arguing about it. If this sentence is true, then Santa Claus exists. Curry paradox ftw.[/quote] A sentence with two independent clauses, one true, and one untrue does not evaluate true... So that's not a paradox at all. Unless you meant the second sentence to be self-referential. In which case, ya. But why did you bring it up? :p[/quote] It proves Santa Claus exists.

Quote from Syphon

Quote from devilesk

Quote from AntiSleep

It is bad, almost like watching children argue about the existence of Santa.

Yea, because Santa does exist so there's no point in arguing about it.

If this sentence is true, then Santa Claus exists.

Curry paradox ftw.

A sentence with two independent clauses, one true, and one untrue does not evaluate true... So that's not a paradox at all.

Unless you meant the second sentence to be self-referential. In which case, ya. But why did you bring it up?

It proves Santa Claus exists.