Identifying pseudoscience

Anything can be discussed, tempers may flare.
This forum has no connection with CERN, the LHC or my site.

Moderator: CharmQuark

Forum rules
Any controversial topic can be discussed. Freedom of expression is encouraged. The scientific validity of things posted in this forum may stray from reality quite wildly and the reader is advised to keep that in mind. Please refrain from bad language and DO NOT get overly abusive with other members. You MUST post in English. It is OK to have fiercely intense debate. This forum has no connection with CERN, the LHC or my site. The views here do not represent the forum's views or my views in any way. It is meant as a place to debate or discuss subjects that may create heated debate. Almost no moderation will occur in this forum at all.
oxodoes
Posts: 66
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2010 10:26 pm
Contact:

Identifying pseudoscience

Post by oxodoes » Sat Apr 17, 2010 1:27 pm

How to identify pseudoscience (without knowing s.th. about the actual topic):
  • -Use of vague, exaggerated or untestable claims
    -Over-reliance on confirmation rather than refutation
    -Lack of openness to testing by other experts
    -Absence of progress
    -Personalization of issues
    -Use of misleading language
Compiled from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscie ... udoscience

Mailo
Posts: 42
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 7:42 am

Re: Identifying pseudoscience

Post by Mailo » Sat Apr 17, 2010 1:32 pm

I'd definitely add

- Extrapolating analogies way, way ... WAY outside of their applicability (e.g. LHC is more dangerous than cosmic radiation because sunlight is more dangerous when focussed by a magnifying glass)

to that list, but nice start :)

User avatar
tswsl1989
LHCPortal Guru
Posts: 166
Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2009 2:22 pm
Location: Swansea, Wales, UK
Contact:

Re: Identifying pseudoscience

Post by tswsl1989 » Sat Apr 17, 2010 2:07 pm

See also: Crackpot Index as referenced elsewhere on this forum

User avatar
chelle
Posts: 738
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 11:32 am
Location: XL - BXL - B

Re: Identifying pseudoscience

Post by chelle » Sat Apr 17, 2010 7:58 pm

Mailo wrote:LHC is more dangerous than cosmic radiation because sunlight is more dangerous when focussed by a magnifying glass
I don't mind calling what I bring up pseudoscience as it is surely the case because it hasn't been proved.

But to call my loupe-analogy pseudosciences is lame. The lhc creates a concentration of particles with high velocity, for pete's sake they use themselves cosmic rays as an analogy. The lhc increases the intensity, just like a magnifying glass does with photons. And using a funnel as a safety test, isn't far fetched.

btw if you have comments on what I say, post them where it is relevant: link
Dance, even if you have nowhere to do it but your own living room.
Wear Sunscreen by Baz Luhrmann - Mary Schmich

User avatar
CharmQuark
Site Admin
Posts: 1478
Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2009 2:22 am
Location: Berwick-Upon-Tweed (UK)

Re: Identifying pseudoscience

Post by CharmQuark » Sat Apr 17, 2010 8:13 pm

Excuse me Chelle but why have you not made your own thread and insisted in taking over Ivans? this bugs me terrible :thumbdown:
Anyone who doesn't take truth seriously in small matters cannot be trusted with large ones either by Albert Einstein.

User avatar
tswsl1989
LHCPortal Guru
Posts: 166
Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2009 2:22 pm
Location: Swansea, Wales, UK
Contact:

Re: Identifying pseudoscience

Post by tswsl1989 » Sat Apr 17, 2010 8:13 pm

chelle wrote:btw if you have comments on what I say, post them where it is relevant: link
Mailo was using one of your points to illustrate a relevant comment in this thread.
Comments about your views *have* been made in the appropriate place.

User avatar
Xymox
Site Admin
Posts: 1022
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 12:55 pm
Location: Phoenix, Az USA
Contact:

Re: Identifying pseudoscience

Post by Xymox » Sun Apr 18, 2010 7:45 am

chelle Create your own thread separate from Ivan. Thats fair..

User avatar
chelle
Posts: 738
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 11:32 am
Location: XL - BXL - B

Re: Identifying pseudoscience

Post by chelle » Sun Apr 18, 2010 11:46 am

tswsl1989 wrote:
chelle wrote:btw if you have comments on what I say, post them where it is relevant: link
Mailo was using one of your points to illustrate a relevant comment in this thread.
Comments about your views *have* been made in the appropriate place.
Not about this specific argument, so my above comment is relevant, because I believe my loupe-argument is funded, as I pointed out. So why should I accept that someone goes bringing up arguments in an other thread while he doesn't debate them where its due?
Xymox wrote:chelle Create your own thread separate from Ivan. Thats fair..
ok guys, I see that you are not comfortable with me making comments in the other thread, so Chris it's ok for me if you cut it where "tswsl1989" first suggested, perhaps you could call "Combustion".
tswsl1989 wrote:Splitting the topic around here would be reasonable. link
Dance, even if you have nowhere to do it but your own living room.
Wear Sunscreen by Baz Luhrmann - Mary Schmich

User avatar
chelle
Posts: 738
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 11:32 am
Location: XL - BXL - B

Re: Identifying pseudoscience

Post by chelle » Tue Apr 20, 2010 3:33 pm

Mailo wrote:- Extrapolating analogies way, way ... WAY outside of their applicability (e.g. LHC is more dangerous than cosmic radiation because sunlight is more dangerous when focussed by a magnifying glass)
FYI
Focussing the beam allows its width and height to be constrained so that it stays inside the vacuum chamber. This is achieved by quadrupole magnets, which act on the beam of charged particles exactly the same way as a lens would act on a beam of light http://www.lhc-closer.es/php/index.php?i=1&s=4&p=6&e=2
Dance, even if you have nowhere to do it but your own living room.
Wear Sunscreen by Baz Luhrmann - Mary Schmich

User avatar
mrgumby
Posts: 266
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 2:53 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Identifying pseudoscience

Post by mrgumby » Wed Apr 28, 2010 6:27 am

Technophobia and attempted justification by stretched analogy. Dear oh dear oh dear.

User avatar
chelle
Posts: 738
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 11:32 am
Location: XL - BXL - B

Re: Identifying pseudoscience

Post by chelle » Wed Apr 28, 2010 8:21 am

mrgumby wrote:Technophobia and attempted justification by stretched analogy. Dear oh dear oh dear.
What's wrong with you?
Dance, even if you have nowhere to do it but your own living room.
Wear Sunscreen by Baz Luhrmann - Mary Schmich

User avatar
mrgumby
Posts: 266
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 2:53 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Identifying pseudoscience

Post by mrgumby » Wed Apr 28, 2010 8:27 am

Chelle wrote:
mrgumby wrote:Technophobia and attempted justification by stretched analogy. Dear oh dear oh dear.
What's wrong with you?

I'm allergic to B.S. I'm afraid

User avatar
chelle
Posts: 738
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 11:32 am
Location: XL - BXL - B

Re: Identifying pseudoscience

Post by chelle » Wed Apr 28, 2010 8:38 am

mrgumby wrote:... I'm afraid
That's ok.
Dance, even if you have nowhere to do it but your own living room.
Wear Sunscreen by Baz Luhrmann - Mary Schmich

Kasuha
Posts: 570
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2009 1:22 pm

Re: Identifying pseudoscience

Post by Kasuha » Wed Apr 28, 2010 8:47 am

Chelle wrote:I ... bring up pseudoscience as it is surely ... is lame.
Let's play~

User avatar
chelle
Posts: 738
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 11:32 am
Location: XL - BXL - B

Re: Identifying pseudoscience

Post by chelle » Wed Apr 28, 2010 9:17 am

Kasuha wrote:ay~
Image
Dance, even if you have nowhere to do it but your own living room.
Wear Sunscreen by Baz Luhrmann - Mary Schmich

Post Reply