Siteadmin, Check users, nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
30,650
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 72:
Line 72: + + + + + +
A few rambling notions about real science vs. pseudoscience
::I was reading through [[evolution]], and according to Popper, who was a real authority on this stuff, evolution isn't scientific. [[User:ReneeStJ|ReneeStJ]] 20:40, 12 February 2009 (EST)
::I was reading through [[evolution]], and according to Popper, who was a real authority on this stuff, evolution isn't scientific. [[User:ReneeStJ|ReneeStJ]] 20:40, 12 February 2009 (EST)
:::The [[Theory of Evolution]] is accepted by mainstream scientists, hence it lacks one aspect of being considered pseudoscience: rejection by the scientific community. Note that a theory may be valid despite having been dismissed by the mainstream. Infection by an "invisible substance" (see [[Semmelweis]]) and [[continental drift]] were both rejected by the mainstream for years.
:::Sometimes we know that there is a cause and effect relationship, even when we don't know the details. People have always known that "[[sunburn]]" comes from exposing your skin to sunlight too long, but the existence of [[ultraviolet]] rays is a comparatively recent discovery. Should scientists have slapped ''pseudoscience'' on the theory that sunlight causes tanning and burning, simply because they didn't know '''why''' it happened?
:::Anyway, evolution can be considered pseudoscientific if its proponents refuse to agree to any kind of test which could conceivably disprove their theory. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 10:22, 29 July 2010 (EDT)
== Psychoanalysis ==
== Psychoanalysis ==