Dear All,
Schrafinator says:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by peter borger:
To all,
From the reference:
"The board made a clear statement and said 'no' to pseudo-science," said Patricia Princehouse, a Case Western Reserve University professor and a board member of Ohio Citizens for Science.
My question: How would pseudoscience be defined?
Best wishes,
Peter
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here's a good definition:
pseudoscience - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com
Partial quote:
"A pseudoscience is set of ideas based on theories put forth as scientific when they are not scientific.
Scientific theories are characterized by such things as (a) being based upon empirical observation rather than the authority of some sacred text; (b) explaining a range of empirical phenomena; (c) being empirically tested in some meaningful way, usually involving testing specific predictions deduced from the theory; (d) being confirmed rather than falsified by empirical tests or with the discovery of new facts; (e) being impersonal and therefore testable by anyone regardless of personal religious or metaphysical beliefs; (f) being dynamic and fecund, leading investigators to new knowledge and understanding of the interrelatedness of the natural world rather than being static and stagnant leading to no research or development of a better understanding of anything in the natural world; and (g) being approached with skepticism rather than gullibility, especially regarding paranormal forces or supernatural powers, and being fallible and put forth tentatively rather than being put forth dogmatically as infallible."
PB says:
Everybody agrees with this definition?
BW
Peter
™ Version 4.2