Science and Pseudoscience
-------------------------
Pseudo-, Pseud- (pref), 1. False; deceptive; sham.   2. Apparently 
                           similar. 
 [ME < L.Lat. < Gk. pseudes, false < pseudein, to lie]
 (see Pseudepigrapha, Pseudoscientific, Pseudocyesis, Pseudomorph).
Scientific Principles: (as opposed to scientific philosophy)
A.  There is a methodology (poss.ideology) of science consisting 
    of a _cognitive structure_  (facts -> hypothesis -> experiment -> 
    laws -> theory), together with the processes of _verification_ 
    and _peer review_.
    
B.  Science is a _social activity_, with the standards for what 
    constitutes good science determined by the norms of a particular
    community.
Hallmarks of Pseudoscience:
A.  Anachronistic Thinking:  reversion to outdated or outmoded theories
    discarded by the scientific community years, or even centuries, ago
    as being inadequate.  
    
B.  Seeking Mysteries: Agenda to seek out anomalies.  The suspect 
    methodology that, anything that can be seen as a mystery _ought_
    to be seen as one.
    
C.  Casual approach to evidence:  Quantity of evidence makes up for any
    deficiency in the quality of the individual pieces.  Even when an
    experiment or study has been shown to be questionable, it is never
    dropped from the list of confirming evidence.
    
D.  Irrefutable hypothesis:  Given any hypothesis, we can always ask
    what it would take to produce evidence against it.  If nothing
    conceivable could speak against the hypothesis, then it has no
    claim to be labeled scientific.  Creationism is a good example:
    there is simply no possible way to falsify the creationist's
    model of the world.
    
E. Spurious similarities:  Principles that underlie their theories are
   already part of legitimate science.  For example, the study of
   biorhythms tries to piggyback upon legitimate studies carried out
   on circadian rhythms and other chemical and electrical oscillators
   known to be present in the human body.  
   
F. Explanation by scenario:  Engaging in explanation by scenario alone, ie,
   by mere scenario without proper regard for known laws and theories.
   A prime offender in this regard is the work of Velikovsky, who states
   that Venus's near collision with the Earth caused the Earth to flip 
   over and reverse its magnetic poles.  Velikovsky offers no mechanism
   by which this cosmic even could have taken place, and the basic 
   principle of deducing consequences from general principles is totally
   ignored in his "explanation" of such phenomena.
   
G. Research by literary interpretation:  Treating any statement made by
   any scientist as being open to interpretation, just as in literature
   and the arts, and such statements can then be used against other
   scientists.  
   
H. Refusal to revise: Cranks and crackpots pride themselves on never
   having been shown to be wrong.  It's for this reason that the
   experienced scientific hand never, under any circumstances,
   enters into dialogue with a pseudoscientist.  They see debate not
   as a mechanism for scientific progress, but as an exercise in
   rhetorical combat.  
   
    
(These criteria are used by the editor of a prominent scientific journal
to discriminate submissions of scientific quality from pseudoscientific
drivel.)
It's interesting that there are two simple principles which decide the
science-worthiness of an article, but eight relatively complex earmarks
of pseudoscience.
Also note, that even though something may be pseudoscientific in no
way automatically forces the position to be held as impossible, nor
rejected out-of-hand based upon its demerits alone.
Furthermore, in no way is pseudoscience disallowed in a philsophical
discussion, provided it is meant for counterpoint and argument in a
purely speculative vein.  Philosophy is NOT science, and Science is
NOT philosophy, per se.  Philosophy has a science, and science _has_
as philosophy, but also pseudoscience also has a philosophy.  And,
even philosophy has its pseudoscience.
... Cannibals don't eat clowns because they taste funny.
--- GEcho 1.11++TAG 2.7c
---------------