quote:
For example, in the Middle Ages, skilled craftsmen and alchemists dreamed of turning lead into gold
Actually, you can turn lead into gold. It just happens to be a nuclear reaction instead of a chemical reaction.
quote:
and of mixing chemicals with fire to discover the secret elixer that would guarantee ever-lasting life.
Well, actually, scientists are working on changing the chemistry of the cell (ie DNA sequence) to lengthen a person's life. It may not require fire, but manipulation of the chemistry of life may in fact result in ever-lasting life.
quote:
Again, while most scientifically minded indivuals would now scoff at this idea today, it was still nonetheless this very same psuedo-scientific impulse which would ultimately open the path for dedicated men such as James Clerk Maxwell to wittle away the myth from the pseudo-science.
Why were these pursuits pseudo-scientific? I think this is an important question. As Percy explained so eloquentily, a falsified hypothesis does not a pseudoscience make. Science is a tool, a methodology. Science uses methodological naturalism, a field where natural phenomena must be explained in terms of testable natural mechanisms. For making lead into gold, the pursuit could be completely scientific. In the end, they could conclude, scientifically, that there is no chemical reaction that will make lead into gold. This makes it a failed hypothesis, not a pseudoscience.
A pseudoscience is a methodology that does not rely on testable natural mechanisms. For instance, including supernatural forces to describe a natural phenomena is the hallmark of a pseudoscience. Zeus hurling lightning or God supernaturally pouring water from windows in heaven are two perfect examples of pseudoscience. Less extreme pseudosciences are ghost hunting and ESP research, both of which use untestable mechanisms to explain phenomena. Some ESP research is trying to be scientific, but the use of ad hoc hypotheses weakens it's hold on scientific methodology.
quote:
When Galileo presented his heliocentric theory, he brought forth a great insight into the nature of our solar system. He presented a clear theory that could be easilly tested against the pattern of the planet's motions. When it was first presented, many within the church initally rejected it in favor of their understanding of the Scriptures. Having said this, however, although Galileo was initially correct in determining that the sun was indeed the center of the solar system, he was ultimately incorrect in asserting that the sun was the center of all the stars and indeed the entire universe -- and it took some time to test his theory to the point that this distinction could be clearly discerned.
So how was Galileo's Theory pseudoscience? Even within the quote it says "He presented a clear theory that could be easilly tested against the pattern of the planet's motions." This means that Galileo was doing science, not pseudoscience. His theory was completely testable through nature instead of the pseudoscientific method of revelation through interpreted scripture. The real pseudoscience was using Scripture and spiritual revelation to describe nature, the same pseudoscience being used by creationists today.
quote:
In Galileo's theory, the smaller claim is true -- but the larger claim is not.
But how do we know that the larger claim was wrong? Through scientific testing. If Galileo was practicing pseudoscience it would not be testable.
This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 04-13-2005 02:32 PM
™ Version 4.2
