Can pseudo-science serve a purpose in scientific advancement?

[FZ+]

Darkwing: You are missing an intense point. The division between pseudoscience and proper science is not one of methods, or theories, but of attitudes. If we have astrologers willingly carrying out controlled tests, proponents of alien abduction using double-blinds, mystics submitting papers for peer review and people trying to reproduce telepathy in controlled environment - that pseudoscientists are prepared to show SCEPTICISM, then they would no longer be pseudoscientists, but acceptable, credible scientists. If relativity was based on belief, with postulates that are impossible to test, without continuous attempts to disprove it, then it too would be a pseudoscience. A mere belief system.
Rather, while you critise from your armchair, maybe you can try to get them to do something about their theories, than wallow in paranoia and self-pity?

 

[Kerrie]

FZ, there are plenty of astrologers willing to prove that astrology CAN work, however in this particular case, the free will of the individual is not something that can be predictable...i use astrology as an example because of the basic lack of understanding of WHAT it is and HOW it really does and does not work...just because something cannot fit into the scientific method does not mean that it is not valid...

science is a work in progress, and we have many new things yet to learn...

to limit our scope to just a scientific understanding MAY slow down and narrow our rate of learning and understanding...and yet with this, objectivity and skepticism in ALL approaches (whether for or against current pseudo-science topics) must be equal to those of scientific studies...the bias in our approaches of scientific research due to pre-disposed opinions of certain scientists IN CHARGE OF THESE STUDIES will greatly sway humanity's scope of learning...

these scientists are leaders in a sense, and we need them to be as objective and unbiased as possible...

 

[FZ+]

FZ, there are plenty of astrologers willing to prove that astrology CAN work,

Well, I'd like to see the controlled statistical tests etc first... And CAN work does not equal does work - the law of probability states that they've got to be right sometimes...

just because something cannot fit into the scientific method does not mean that it is not valid...

Yes, but then it isn't science is it? And how can we know it is valid, except by faith?

 

[Kerrie]

FZ, you say, "it isn't science then", but science is a tool, and tools are not perfect, especially when handled by the subjective human being...we need to remember this, but many claim that science = truth, but not always, it is as developed as we are...

 

[FZ+]

I mean that something which does not fit into the scientific method is obviously not scientific. And without the scientific methods of checking and testing, it would be impossible to validate it's validity, even to the limited degrees that science allows.

My view is that pseudoscience can form a basis and inspiration for new ideas. But for these ideas to mean anything, they need to get scientific.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Pseudo-science often is the effort to investigate claims that lack scientific evidence, and generally is an effort to investigate phenomenon by means not consistent with the scientific method. The term in itself implies no specific subject. No claim of personal experience is pseudo-science. Any inference otherwise is a value judgment.

Any such judgment could in itself qualify as pseudo-science.

IMHO, the arena of pseudo-science comes in three flavors: Scams, fantasies, and truths. Unfortunately, truths exist for which science provides no legitimate means of investigation. This may be due to a lack of cleverness – no one has ever managed to figure out what else to do – or it can be due in part to the unavoidable conundrums of detecting transient, random, or even unrepeatable phenomena. I fail to place any fault with those persons of good conscience associated with the first option mentioned: claims that lack legitimate evidence. In many cases these individual may simply place human testimony, or even the conviction of certainty through personal experience ahead of the artificial constraints of science. This is not unreasonable given significant justification for belief, even if it can’t be proven. These individuals may then engage in bad science because no other options exist. I find this option preferable to simply ignoring a significant truth due to artificial constraints. At least in this way science can wait, silently watching for those illusive bits of gold that could emerge from the sand.

The fantasies and scams can surely do harm. But I think these are merely manifestations of mental health problems, emotional problems or needs, and crime. These things would exist without the bad science. In fact, the fantasies may not even be a bad thing in some instances