++> On March 03-98 Mark Bloss wrote to ALL
 ++> Subject: The Fringe and the Cutting Edge
 
  .....just some few gut responses from an ol' cantankerous bird!
 
 
 MB> Hallmarks of Pseudoscience:
 
 MB> A. Anachronistic Thinking:  reversion to outdated or outmoded theories
 MB> discarded by the scientific community years, or even centuries, ago
 MB> as being inadequate.
 
    .....old discarded ideas CAN come back and be reinstated to play
    new roles in new ways... or old underappreciated ways.
 
 MB> B. Seeking Mysteries: Agenda to seek out anomalies.  The suspect
 MB> methodology that, anything that can be seen as a mystery _ought_
 MB> to be seen as one.
 
    ...We need be not so quick to discard ANYTHING! God (if there is He,
    or an equivalent CREATION guy), may turn out to be a poet !!! and all
    our scientific knowing to be the real nonsense! It might well be that
    some things WHERE born to stay in the realm of mystery (though it
    does catch my best-quest attentions!).
 
 MB> C.  Casual approach to evidence:  Quantity of evidence makes up
 MB> for any deficiency in the quality of the individual pieces.  Even
 MB> when an experiment or study has been shown to be questionable, it
 MB> is never dropped from the list of confirming evidence.
 
    ...all acquisitions may/do have value... The very process of mixing
    them up may be part of our brain/discovery linkage. It is an endless
    argument as to EVERYTHING on the table or only those things that have
    proven themselves valid. I distrust elitism, whether in science or
    philosophy ....though I realize that my (large scale) reality is
    constantly being defined by over-layers of peerage.
 
 MB> D. Irrefutable hypothesis:  Given any hypothesis, we can always ask
 MB> what it would take to produce evidence against it.  If nothing
 MB> conceivable could speak against the hypothesis, then it has no
 MB> claim to be labeled scientific.  Creationism is a good example:
 MB> there is simply no possible way to falsify the creationist's
 MB> model of the world.
 
    Not sure I understnad that a hypothesis can only be scientific
    if there is evidence against it ? ? ?
    "Creationism" (and Evolutionism) are just "conveniences of present
    knowledge" as bent apart by those not reasonable enough to see
    them both as NOT mutually exclusive; and that they might both
    of them be superseded by yet another way of knowing.
 
 MB> E. Spurious similarities:  Principles that underlie their theories are
 MB> already part of legitimate science.  For example, the study of
 MB> biorhythms tries to piggyback upon legitimate studies carried out
 MB> on circadian rhythms and other chemical and electrical oscillators
 MB> known to be present in the human body.
 
   It is most comforting to realize that words can protect us from
   "spurious similarities".
 
 MB> F. Explanation by scenario:  Engaging in explanation by scenario alone,
 MB> ie, by mere scenario without proper regard for known laws and theories.
 MB> A prime offender in this regard is the work of Velikovsky,
 
     ...one of MY very favorites ... most unfair to hand pick one wrongness
     out of a thousand presented points... When Einsten died, Velikovsky's
     latest book was found opened on his desk. As I've already defended
     "V" as best I can (to Richard, who called him a moron), I would not
     effort a repeat.
 
 MB> who states that Venus's near collision with the Earth caused the
 MB> Earth to flip over and reverse its magnetic poles.  Velikovsky offers
 MB> no mechanism by which this cosmic even could have taken place, and the
 MB> basic principle of deducing consequences from general principles is
 MB> totally ignored in his "explanation" of such phenomena.
 
   It's been some time since I read him but I seem to remember him
   providing good reasoning for his views, and that in the primary
   attack on him by Carl Sagan, it was also argued that Carl had not
   done his homework.
 
 MB> G. Research by literary interpretation:  Treating any statement made by
 MB> any scientist as being open to interpretation, just as in literature
 MB> and the arts, and such statements can then be used against other
 MB> scientists.
 
     Everything IS always open to interpretation? I may have missed
     your point here.
 
 MB> H. Refusal to revise: Cranks and crackpots pride themselves on never
 MB> having been shown to be wrong.  It's for this reason that the
 MB> experienced scientific hand never, under any circumstances,
 MB> enters into dialogue with a pseudoscientist.  They see debate not
 MB> as a mechanism for scientific progress, but as an exercise in
 MB> rhetorical combat.
 
   I have a warm feeling for the cranks and crackpots and can see why
   I have problems with the "serious scientific (and philosophic) hands".
   I enjoy deciding for myself among the truths and falsehoods (however
   bent my own resulting views) ....LET ALL THE FIELD BLOOM ... rare
   flowers and weeds equal alike. I'm not warm to the expert and his
   "CORRECT" narrow definitions.
 
 MB> (These criteria are used by the editor of a prominent scientific
 MB> journal to discriminate submissions of scientific quality from
 MB> pseudoscientific drivel.)
 
     I find the word "drivel" painful in an open minded/mindful world.....
 
 MB> Also note, that even though something may be pseudoscientific in no
 MB> way automatically forces the position to be held as impossible, nor
 MB> rejected out-of-hand based upon its demerits alone.
 
   I *DO* note it! ... but the weight of all your above commentary does
   sound to be denigrating a seed mechanism that has served us well
   by opening early doors and laughing at scientific doors that "QUIETLY"
   find themselves in error!
 
 MB> Furthermore, in no way is pseudoscience disallowed in a philosophical
 MB> discussion, provided it is meant for counterpoint and argument in a
 MB> purely speculative vein.
 
     It has every right to be used, "speculative vein" or NOT !!!
 
 MB> Philosophy is NOT science, and Science is NOT philosophy, per se.
 MB> Philosophy has a science, and science _has_ as philosophy, but also
 MB> pseudoscience also has a philosophy.  And, even philosophy has its
 MB> pseudoscience.
 
     To say something and then "per se" it out the window is a bit
     bumpy!  In truth (mine), the interplay of the above terminologies
     ever entangle .....some beyond any serious absolutes of critical
     definition. We must pause to remember that "Science" and "philosophy"
     are only separated as a convenience to those that would not
     appreciate Creation's finest language.
 
     Guess I'm not as prone to be so rigid in defining and responding
     to pseudoscience. I see pseudoscience as a free form unfettered
     probe and IMAGINATION's grand candle ....an early flickering warmth
     that makes historical science possible. Mark! I do realize my
     minority positions, and that on any measurable surface, a slippery
     one at best ......It is just my way!
 
                             @@ ... Dave
 
     I see pseudo-science as the cutting edge of the cutting edge-
     ...the FAITH before the fact...... and the smile after it -
--- Maximus/2 3.01
---------------