- #1
just__curious
- 10
- 0
How to fight against metaphysics and pseudoscience?
Danger said:Prepare for failure. Most people who believe in that crap just don't want to know the truth and won't accept it when it's presented to them.
Ivan Seeking said:A few comments: First of all, if one thinks about it properly, no subject is in itself pseudoscience. As does "science", "psuedoscience" refers to a methodology.
Take my favorite example of UFOs: UFOs are not pseudoscience. First of all, many UFOS are explained in conventional terms using conventional information. For example, if there is supporting information that at 4:30 PM, on Tuesday, an F117 made a low flyover of a populated area, and we get UFO reports from that area at the proper time describing a delta shaped craft, is it pseudoscience to say that the reported observations were probably an F117 on a test flight? Of course not. However, you will find many so called ufologists engaged in pseudoscience. Credible scientists interested in UFOs look for conventional explanations for well documented UFO events, and then they seek to falsify the conventional explanations for the reports using conventional science, where possible. Then they look for any interesting residue. Pseudoscience seeks to explain the reports in unconventional terms and using unscientific methods.
In fact, I would go another step and suggest that it is pseudoscience to call any reported phenomena or study thereof pseudoscience! Phenomena and reported observations are just that. Often, there is no burden of proof as the events are often transient and not repeatable; there is no particular claim except to say that such and such was observed. But, when we attempt to prove, explain, or in particular, to interpret the information, we can get into trouble very quickly. The other most common mistakes are to assume that evidence is proof, and to treat anecdotal evidence as something more than an anecdote. Also, making a false claim is not pseudoscience. We already have a name for that; it is called lying.
Is perpetual motion pseudoscience? Of course not; it is a concept. But to claim that PPM can be achieved through some magical process that circumvents known science is pseudoscience.
Another form of pseudoscience is to declare a claim to be false when the claim has not been falsified - or to claim pseudoscience where there is none. So, many of those yelling "pseudoscience!" are often practicing the same by making the accusation. We might assume a claim to be false by way of skepticism, or by using the rule of thumb of Occams' razor, but this is not proof that a claim is false. However, many people have tried to treat it as such. Again, this is a failed methodology and pseudoscientific.
As for people who insist on believing incredible claims given no supporting evidence, or those who insist on accepting claims already disproven by science, I think you are fighting human nature. At that point it becomes more a matter of faith - religion. In fact, unless someone is going to practice science, you might consider that you could actually do harm by disproving a person's beliefs. Maybe they cling to those beliefs as a way to get through the day. IMO, if someone really wants to know the truth, they will be open to explanations. If they resist explanations to the point of being irrational, then you are dealing with a human need to believe.
Ironically, I think this happens to many UFO debunkers. They have some intrinsic need to believe that ET couldn't be here, so any claim of an unexplained phenomenon is a threat to that belief, and they become irrational. In fact it is common to find that UFO debunkers know very little about the subject.
If it's necessary to 'multiply entities', then doing so is not a violation of Occam's razor.donotremember said:Violating Ockham's razor is necessary sometimes to find the real explanation sometimes but it isn't the best heuristic to use it ALL the time.
just__curious said:How to fight against metaphysics and pseudoscience?
just__curious said:How to fight against metaphysics and pseudoscience?
just__curious said:How to fight against metaphysics and pseudoscience?
moe darklight said:Most people are reasonable, and will give up unreasonable beliefs and points of view once they are exposed as such.
Such questioning and re-examination is called epistemology, and Einstein appealed for its enthusiastic re-application during his memoriam on the death of Ernst Mach. Didn't happen then - ain't happening now.waht said:People have an ability to believe in something, but the belief itself doesn't guarantee that what you believe is factual or real. One needs to go a step further and systematically screen for inconsistencies or else risk falling for this psychological trap.
oming
I guess that if people looked at their own thought process in more detail, and asked themselves questions like why did I think about this, or why I believed in this or that, it would clear their minds a little bit, and maybe start the screening process. But if the people don't do it on their own, perhaps (haven't tried it) we should ask the right questions so they can articulate their own thoughts.
moe darklight said:what do you mean?
NeoDevin said:Have you ever argued with an evolution denier? How about a 9-11 truther? Anti-vaccination crowd?
I don't think you have.
NeoDevin said:Some people cling so tightly to their unreasonable (irrational) beliefs, and are able to compartmentalize their thinking sufficiently that they never actually confront any contradictions.
maze said:Many people are in the anti-vaccination crowd because they believe forcing someone to take a medication against their will is a violation of individual liberties.
This has nothing to do with science or pseudoscience.
moe darklight said:Why would people do that? Maybe you are just pessimistic. That sort of behavior would be very strange.
Right! Don't confuse metaphysics with bad metaphysics.Pythagorean said:Wait, why the neg towards metaphysics?
Jang Jin Hong said:quantum mechanics itself is not physics. that is a inductive metaphysics.
That is same to relativity. Svante Arrhenius said that relativity is a philosophical theory.
Jang Jin Hong said:Physicist use quantum mechanics to analyse physical phenomena,
but quantum mechanics itself is not physics. that is a inductive metaphysics.
That is same to relativity. Svante Arrhenius said that relativity is a philosophical theory.
If you study quantum mechanics deeply, you will confront with metaphysics.
But if you want to study that problem,
you must depart from academic society and must go to the way of crank.
arunma said:Wait...what? Quantum mechanics is perhaps the most widely tested and verified of all scientific theories. If anything should be called "physics," it's quantum mechanics, which is the basis of many modern research areas in physics (condensed matter, nuclear/particle, etc.). Why would one refer to quantum mechanics as metaphysics? Quantum mechanics is not philosophy, it's science.