SSM Plebiscite

[northernblue]

I was going to respond but LP has nailed it - and far more eloquently and succinctly than I could have managed.

I concur, pretty well nailed LP.

From memory Stephen Hawkings definition of a scientific theory was ...”observations that lead to future predictions that are measurable and repeatable...”

Pseudoscience latches onto scientific papers that support its point of view (cherry picking data).
Whereas science uses peer review, and if it can’t be replicated it (a theory) gets discarded fairly quickly.

As noted above, science doesn’t care what you believe.

[PaulP]

Science is a human institution and a human creation like a lot of other things, and is therefore enmeshed in group dynamics, politics, peer group pressure, institutionalized bias etc., the same as any other human endeavour. To believe otherwise is IMO pure folly.

The term pseudoscience is absolutely intended as a negative slur, as though any information presented as such is the work of cranks, snake oil salesmen etc. It never occurs to materialist science that there may in fact be a limitation on their own methods of identification, measurement etc. that may preclude some very worthwhile aspects of knowledge from serious and worthwhile consideration. Some of the best aspects of being on this planet cannot be measured, they can only be lived and experienced.

[Baggers]

It's interesting how followers of a dogma accuse science of being dogmatic, it seems impossible for many to separate their need for belief from scientific observation.

There is a general societal failure to understand the meaning of hypothesis and theory in a scientific context. Claiming that a scientific hypothesis or theory is about faith or belief is an error made from a dogmatic perspective, hypothesis built on faith would be examples of pseudoscience unproven or proven to be untestable or unmeasurable.

In science a hypothesis only becomes theory when the probability of it being true is very high, always after measurement and testing.

In dogma and in general society theory is widely misused, an idea which would more correctly be described as a claim without supporting evidence is frequently labeled a theory. It requires some faith or belief.

Science is not a belief system, belief has no part of science, and confidence in a scientific hypothesis is not about faith. An assertion can be made in science(Asking a question), choosing the assertion is not faith or belief base, because by default you must then test all cases supporting and counter to your assertion. In science an hypothesis is nothing more than a starting point, a starting point that may be based on some previous evidence but not necessarily, and a valid result in science can be either negative and positive.

If it is not measurable, testable and repeatable then it is not science, it is then a matter of faith. Phenomena that cannot be measured and tested has a high probability of not being real.

New Age has a horrendous history of misappropriation of terms like science, hypothesis and proof because many ideas proselytized are deliberately fashioned to be impossible to prove or disprove. By definition you might claim you cannot prove a negative result, in this regard those New Age ideas are nothing more than philosophical toys. Language gymnastics, not real science. We conduct this debate here in English, in other languages the terms might not even exists in which we can frame some of these pseudoscience issues, yet science's hypothesis, measurement and testing spans any language, the scientific method is not dependent on belief, faith, perspective or language.

Totally agree with DJC, you nailed it here, Spotted One.

PP, you mentioned Sheldrake... well I was one of the folks who got to see his talk on YouTube before TEDx took it down (but I think it is back up). I admit to not agreeing with Sheldrake early in his talk simply based on his 10 assumptions regarding science (their 'apparent' 10 dogmas). These spurious dogmas he came up with (as a way to invalidate science) were at least misleading and would in themselves not stand up to logical scrutiny... as they didn't and haven't.

[deags]

Actually it does occur to them that some things cannot be measured. It's s fundamental part of science that we cannot know everything at any particular time. Again, theory/hypotheses vs Knowing.

[northernblue]

That’s philosophy Paul.
Science is observation and measurement and yes, even probabilities (a lesser but still important science)

[PaulP]

.........

PP, you mentioned Sheldrake... well I was one of the folks who got to see his talk on YouTube before TEDx took it down (but I think it is back up). I admit to not agreeing with Sheldrake early in his talk simply based on his 10 assumptions regarding science (their 'apparent' 10 dogmas). These spurious dogmas he came up with (as a way to invalidate science) were at least misleading and would in themselves not stand up to logical scrutiny... as they didn't and haven't.

His work has nothing to do with invalidating science - his work has to do with simultaneously getting materialist science to understand its limits and also to get materialist science to accept other valid ways of looking at the world, that lie outside its comfort zone.

[Baggers]

Science is a human institution and a human creation like a lot of other things, and is therefore enmeshed in group dynamics, politics, peer group pressure, institutionalized bias etc., the same as any other human endeavour. To believe otherwise is IMO pure folly.

The term pseudoscience is absolutely intended as a negative slur, as though any information presented as such is the work of cranks, snake oil salesmen etc. It never occurs to materialist science that there may in fact be a limitation on their own methods of identification, measurement etc. that may preclude some very worthwhile aspects of knowledge from serious and worthwhile consideration. Some of the best aspects of being on this planet cannot be measured, they can only be lived and experienced.

I don't think it is either/or but rather both. There are some in the science community who are somewhat arrogant and label many things out of their domain as pseudoscience or similar. But perhaps the term pseudoscience is not a put down but rather a comment that puts it aside from the testing of more traditional science, at this time (plenty of pseudoscience eventually became reality... in time). There is much in this world that does not fit science models but that does not mean it is real. Sheldrake gets stuck in this idea that science is confined to 'materialism'. That's a pretty outdated idea. There has been plenty of scientific experimentation on what consciousness is, where the mind is and what it is, etc.

I got into an argument with a known 'skeptic' some time ago, someone who only 'worshiped' science and that if it wasn't scientifically provable then it aint real. I asked him if he loved his mother, he snapped back 'of course', I then asked him to prove it.

[Baggers]

His work has nothing to do with invalidating science - his work has to do with simultaneously getting materialist science to understand its limits and also to get materialist science to accept other valid ways of looking at the world, that lie outside its comfort zone.

Suggesting that science is based on ten dogmas that don't stand up to scrutiny seems pretty invalidating to me.

[Baggers]

That’s philosophy Paul.
Science is observation and measurement and yes, even probabilities (a lesser but still important science)

Maybe one day we'll understand that science, philosophy and spirituality are all relevant to the human condition and each shouldn't attempt to protect its domain by invalidating the other based on their rules.

[PaulP]

Suggesting that science is based on ten dogmas that don't stand up to scrutiny seems pretty invalidating to me.

He has a science background, not only in training, but having a father who was also a scientist, and having being surrounded by scientists his whole life. He is not trying to invalidate science, merely trying to get it to expand its horizons. He is not anti-science at all, he is anti scientific dogma, and therefore anti the current incarnation of materialist science.