Where is the proof in pseudoscience?

The word “pseudoscience” is used to describe something that is portrayed as scientific but fails to meet scientific criteria.

This misrepresentation occurs because actual science has creditability (which is to say it works), and pseudoscience attempts to ride on the back of this credibility without subjecting itself to the hard intellectual scrutiny that real science demands.

A good example of pseudoscience is homoeopathy, which presents the façade of a science-based medical practice but fails to adhere to scientific methodology.

Other things typically branded pseudoscience include astrology, young-Earth creationism, iridology, neuro-linguistic programming and water divining, to name but a few.

Something that claims to be a legitimate science, but does not adhere to the strict guidelines of the scientific method as first developed by Galileo. That is, observation, experimentation, empirical evidence, and using that criteria to either support or disprove a theory. There are tricks to getting around even that, however. Cherry-picking the evidence to support a particular conclusion, for example, which global warming “scientists” are too often guilty of.

From the article;

Operational aspects of science

The third level of discrimination is where most of the action between science and pseudoscience actually takes place, over what I earlier called the operational details of science. Getting these details right helps deliver useful causal explanations.

This is where battles are fought over what constitutes evidence, how to properly use statistics, instances of cognitive biases, the use of proper methodologies and so on.

It is where homeopathy relies on confirmation bias, where the anti-vaccine lobby is energised by anecdotes, and where deniers of climate science selectively highlight agreeable data.

“There is no “proof” in science; only degrees of “failure to disprove”. That’s an important difference.”

Well stated and absolutely correct. Pseudo Science is science by induction. That is, conclusions based upon supporting evidence. This seems reasonable to most people, but the problem is that one can produce a truckload of evidence to support virtually any hypothesis. Real science demands that the hypothesis be tested by offering some observable prediction. If the observation is contrary to the prediction, the hypothesis fails.

The entire ‘science’ of Global Warming is based on Pseudo Science. It is all about supporting evidence, while hiding or ignoring all of its failures.

Sorry for the late comment but think the author appears to be setting up his own criteria for what is science. If accepting the Cartesian Method as a valid means of testing then the concept of homeopathy is valid.

author says:
“A good example of pseudoscience is homoeopathy, which presents the façade of a science-based medical practice but fails to adhere to scientific methodology.”

The truth is quite the opposite
The work done by Fritz Albert Popp on this subject and followup research by many others is indisputable. Does it make the garbage stores sell as homeopathic remedies valid? No. But that does not disprove the actual research on the subject? No.

So in answer to your question, I already think the author is capable of throwing aside things that have followed the accepted methods of research but seems to prefer what is marketable to the public instead.

In research you start with an idea, set up rigorous guidelines for testing, do the testing, write a paper on the methods of testing with outcomes and then present to others to reproduce those same results as was done with homeopathy.

Even though the work done by S.R.I. and P.E.A.R. and many other universities across the globe on Remote Viewing establishes it as a valid, I Don’t think this author would accept it. Because it’s not marketable and doesn’t fit the popular belief systems people so prefer to hold onto I don’t think the author would accept it.

I accept remote viewing as true and have done and continue to do my own work on the subject.

I read your bio page and would guess you do not. Am I correct?

BTW, I scored the same as you on the test link you provided at the end of your bio on where we are politically.

I do see we have different belief systems when it comes to how we believe we can find our path to God.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.