Page 1 of 2

Identifying pseudoscience

Posted: Sat Apr 17, 2010 1:27 pm
by oxodoes
How to identify pseudoscience (without knowing s.th. about the actual topic):
  • -Use of vague, exaggerated or untestable claims
    -Over-reliance on confirmation rather than refutation
    -Lack of openness to testing by other experts
    -Absence of progress
    -Personalization of issues
    -Use of misleading language
Compiled from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscie ... udoscience

Re: Identifying pseudoscience

Posted: Sat Apr 17, 2010 1:32 pm
by Mailo
I'd definitely add

- Extrapolating analogies way, way ... WAY outside of their applicability (e.g. LHC is more dangerous than cosmic radiation because sunlight is more dangerous when focussed by a magnifying glass)

to that list, but nice start :)

Re: Identifying pseudoscience

Posted: Sat Apr 17, 2010 2:07 pm
by tswsl1989
See also: Crackpot Index as referenced elsewhere on this forum

Re: Identifying pseudoscience

Posted: Sat Apr 17, 2010 7:58 pm
by chelle
Mailo wrote:LHC is more dangerous than cosmic radiation because sunlight is more dangerous when focussed by a magnifying glass
I don't mind calling what I bring up pseudoscience as it is surely the case because it hasn't been proved.

But to call my loupe-analogy pseudosciences is lame. The lhc creates a concentration of particles with high velocity, for pete's sake they use themselves cosmic rays as an analogy. The lhc increases the intensity, just like a magnifying glass does with photons. And using a funnel as a safety test, isn't far fetched.

btw if you have comments on what I say, post them where it is relevant: link

Re: Identifying pseudoscience

Posted: Sat Apr 17, 2010 8:13 pm
by CharmQuark
Excuse me Chelle but why have you not made your own thread and insisted in taking over Ivans? this bugs me terrible :thumbdown:

Re: Identifying pseudoscience

Posted: Sat Apr 17, 2010 8:13 pm
by tswsl1989
chelle wrote:btw if you have comments on what I say, post them where it is relevant: link
Mailo was using one of your points to illustrate a relevant comment in this thread.
Comments about your views *have* been made in the appropriate place.

Re: Identifying pseudoscience

Posted: Sun Apr 18, 2010 7:45 am
by Xymox
chelle Create your own thread separate from Ivan. Thats fair..

Re: Identifying pseudoscience

Posted: Sun Apr 18, 2010 11:46 am
by chelle
tswsl1989 wrote:
chelle wrote:btw if you have comments on what I say, post them where it is relevant: link
Mailo was using one of your points to illustrate a relevant comment in this thread.
Comments about your views *have* been made in the appropriate place.
Not about this specific argument, so my above comment is relevant, because I believe my loupe-argument is funded, as I pointed out. So why should I accept that someone goes bringing up arguments in an other thread while he doesn't debate them where its due?
Xymox wrote:chelle Create your own thread separate from Ivan. Thats fair..
ok guys, I see that you are not comfortable with me making comments in the other thread, so Chris it's ok for me if you cut it where "tswsl1989" first suggested, perhaps you could call "Combustion".
tswsl1989 wrote:Splitting the topic around here would be reasonable. link

Re: Identifying pseudoscience

Posted: Tue Apr 20, 2010 3:33 pm
by chelle
Mailo wrote:- Extrapolating analogies way, way ... WAY outside of their applicability (e.g. LHC is more dangerous than cosmic radiation because sunlight is more dangerous when focussed by a magnifying glass)
FYI
Focussing the beam allows its width and height to be constrained so that it stays inside the vacuum chamber. This is achieved by quadrupole magnets, which act on the beam of charged particles exactly the same way as a lens would act on a beam of light http://www.lhc-closer.es/php/index.php?i=1&s=4&p=6&e=2

Re: Identifying pseudoscience

Posted: Wed Apr 28, 2010 6:27 am
by mrgumby
Technophobia and attempted justification by stretched analogy. Dear oh dear oh dear.

Re: Identifying pseudoscience

Posted: Wed Apr 28, 2010 8:21 am
by chelle
mrgumby wrote:Technophobia and attempted justification by stretched analogy. Dear oh dear oh dear.
What's wrong with you?

Re: Identifying pseudoscience

Posted: Wed Apr 28, 2010 8:27 am
by mrgumby
Chelle wrote:
mrgumby wrote:Technophobia and attempted justification by stretched analogy. Dear oh dear oh dear.
What's wrong with you?

I'm allergic to B.S. I'm afraid

Re: Identifying pseudoscience

Posted: Wed Apr 28, 2010 8:38 am
by chelle
mrgumby wrote:... I'm afraid
That's ok.

Re: Identifying pseudoscience

Posted: Wed Apr 28, 2010 8:47 am
by Kasuha
Chelle wrote:I ... bring up pseudoscience as it is surely ... is lame.
Let's play~

Re: Identifying pseudoscience

Posted: Wed Apr 28, 2010 9:17 am
by chelle
Kasuha wrote:ay~
Image