List of pseudoscience topics from Wikipedia

[Cainad (dec.)]

It is a pretty all encompassing big list, I think... For me, this guy, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcello_Truzzi and his reasons for leaving SCICOP are interesting. Though I know this will might get another "FFS" or at least an "SMH" from Dok Howl, I'll put it out there:

I believe in Ghosts, ESP, and lots of other "Sciences" on that list. What I relate it in my head is often to the Geiger Counter. Before that, there was no accurate way of measuring radioactivity though we sort of knew something was up. The Geiger Counter gave us a way to quantify that energy. Ghosts, dreams that predict the future etc etc, are all parts of the natural world that have yet to be explained. I believe that matter cannot be created or destroyed. From that, I postulate that there are types of energy, methods of releasing that energy, and eventually, ways of measuring and explaining that energy.

On the other hand, things like Phrenology and the Hongcheng Magic Liquid are rather funny

wut

1) That's not a matter of belief, that's the way the universe is. A natural law, even. One does not "believe" natural laws any more than one "believes" in anything that can be clearly tested, observed, and proven. We call that sort of belief "knowledge" (and I will internet-punch anybody who goes all "Reality Tunnels LOLOLOL" on this discussion).

2) How in gibbering splutterfuck does that have anything to do with ghosts, ESP, or any other hoo-hah spunkdiddling nonsense that middle-aged women dressed in gaudy clothing use to weasel money out of your gullible ass (a profession which I have the utmost respect for, btw; milk the suckers dry!)?

Or are you gonna tell me that a person's "soul" is made out of some kind of "energy", and therefore ghosts and spirits must exist becuz science sez so, you guys!

The whole point of Truzzi's 'pseudoskeptic' argument is that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof"... on both sides of the argument.

In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded. The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved. He asserts that the claimant has not borne the burden of proof and that science must continue to build its cognitive map of reality without incorporating the extraordinary claim as a new "fact." Since the true skeptic does not assert a claim, he has no burden to prove anything. He just goes on using the established theories of "conventional science" as usual. But if a critic asserts that there is evidence for disproof, that he has a negative hypothesis—saying, for instance, that a seeming psi result was actually due to an artifact—he is making a claim and therefore also has to bear a burden of proof.

I think that CSICOP fell victim to the same kind of issue that atheists have... they got an influx of nominal members that BELIEVED they KNEW THE TRUTH instead understanding that they were not holding a position, but rather awaiting extraordinary evidence to back up an extraordinary claim. Skepticism is a neutral position, but most monkeys need to take a pro or anti position which seems to be the crux of the problem.

You appear to be addressing a completely different issue than the one I was talking about.

I'm talking about using the Law of Conservation of Energy to support extraordinary hypotheses that lack any real proof. I find it very annoying to do so.


I mean, shit, I've seen ghosts, usually of my recently deceased pets. I don't need to go believing that some "essence" of their being was preserved by conservation of energy to validate my personal, subjective experience.

[Don Coyote]

I have lightened the fuck up.  I have processed new information, and revised my view.  You're a fun guy to hit the goof threads with, but not really someone for whom I'd spend time writing out a long or well thought out response to, because you won't take it seriously anyway.

Little tiny paradigm shift, and the irritation is all gone.

"The real world is fucking weird enough. We don't need no fucking fairies or dragons or majiqs you fucking hippies."

Sorry I came off as flippant, or whatever.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Errr, sorry I meant that as a supporting argument to your post regarding Truzzi's stance vs Apikoros's post.

[Doktor Howl]

I have lightened the fuck up.  I have processed new information, and revised my view.  You're a fun guy to hit the goof threads with, but not really someone for whom I'd spend time writing out a long or well thought out response to, because you won't take it seriously anyway.

Little tiny paradigm shift, and the irritation is all gone.

"The real world is fucking weird enough. We don't need no fucking fairies or dragons or majiqs you fucking hippies."

Sorry I came off as flippant, or whatever.

S'ok.

[Cainad (dec.)]

Errr, sorry I meant that as a supporting argument to your post regarding Truzzi's stance vs Apikoros's post.

Whoops. Sorry dude, I've been spending too much time in this basement. I think the mold spores have taken a foothold in my brain.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

I have lightened the fuck up.  I have processed new information, and revised my view.  You're a fun guy to hit the goof threads with, but not really someone for whom I'd spend time writing out a long or well thought out response to, because you won't take it seriously anyway.

Little tiny paradigm shift, and the irritation is all gone.

"The real world is fucking weird enough. We don't need no fucking fairies or dragons or majiqs you fucking hippies."

Sorry I came off as flippant, or whatever.

Word of advice:
Saying "That's some good stuff there Dok, could you show me more of the weird you have come across" is more polite than "That's it?"

[LMNO]

I believe that matter cannot be created or destroyed. From that, I postulate that there are types of energy, methods of releasing that energy, and eventually, ways of measuring and explaining that energy.

Ok, you realize that this quote basically affirms you believe in all of what both Newtonian and Particle Physics has to say on the matter, right?

Where the hell do you get an affirmation of pseudoscience from?

[Thurnez Isa]

Science can't exist within certainties.
Like lets take Flat Earth. If I did a meta-study on flat earth theory the best I could come out with as a conclusion is "flat earth theory has no evidence in support and all evidence in contrary." And that's probably the most crazy of the geological claims.
So that puts science always on the defense when it comes to pseudoscience. People don't like living their lives in levels uncertainty.
And it also makes it easy for people to import ideas which have no evidence in support, or little evidence, into an event they have experienced.
The best science can do is tell people whats probably going on, if it can.
Lets take a UFO sighting, seeing something strange in the sky. The best which could be done is tell people what it probably is, or what it probably isn't within certain degrees of uncertainty. Since the extraterrestrial hypothesis is so exciting (though so incredibly weak it's not one I would take serious) peoples imaginations will go to accept that, and it also provides certainty in the event.
So again science has to go on the defense.

[Doktor Howl]

On the other hand, I have no direct evidence that the world is spherical.

[Thurnez Isa]

On the other hand, I have no direct evidence that the world is spherical.

There's tons of evidence that the world is spherical. Not the least being photographs of earth looking back from space.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

On the other hand, I have no direct evidence that the world is spherical.

I have evidence that its at least curved rather than flat. Climbing radio towers can be enlightening

[Doktor Howl]

On the other hand, I have no direct evidence that the world is spherical.

There's tons of evidence that the world is spherical. Not the least being photographs of earth looking back from space.

Looks like a disc in those pics.  Also, photoshop.  The shadow of the Earth on the moon also supports the flat disc approach just as much as the sphere approach.

[Doktor Howl]

On the other hand, I have no direct evidence that the world is spherical.

I have evidence that its at least curved rather than flat. Climbing radio towers can be enlightening

Okay, so it's shaped like a contact lens.

[LMNO]

On the other hand, I have no direct evidence that the world is spherical.

With all due respect, you've never done the experiments.  All science should be able to be replicated with enough resources and time, but most of us tend to draw a line of trust at a certain point.

Also, TI: What the gibbering fuck are you talking about? "Science can't exist within certainties"?  

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

On the other hand, I have no direct evidence that the world is spherical.

I have evidence that its at least curved rather than flat. Climbing radio towers can be enlightening

Okay, so it's shaped like a contact lens.

With SE Ohio at the center apparently.