Random
Source Code
Random
A branch of science without an existing subject.
People engaged in either branch of pseudoscience claim it to be science, either from delusion, ignorance or greed (or all of it). Pseudoscience is invoked in explanations for paranormal phenomenons but not limited to.
Pseudoscience fails to fulfill the definition of science, e.g falsifiability, inconsistance and contradiction of existing knowledge, inabillity to make presumption based on observations or just making a testable hypothesis to an observed phenomenon.
Related to junk scince.
1. Theology - literary, the science of god
2. Intelligent Design - uses "Desinger did it" as a stand-in for argument ad ignorantiam on the science of evolution.
3. Most of the New Age concepts are pseudoscience, such as...
4. Homeopathy - contradicts most of molecular and medical science
118👍 27👎
Noun - The process by which my grandmother reasons to her conclusion that Earth was created 6,000 years ago with fully evolved organisms.
Dude 1: Bro, this study says that using cell phones causes cancer.
Dude 2: (peruses study design and results) Looks like pseudoscience to me.
Dude 1: But it’s true because I’m afraid that it’s true.
Dude 2: Well, I’m afraid that it’s not true.
19👍 6👎
A propaganda word used to discredit anything that THEY don't want you to know.
Many celebrities say how the Law of Attraction changed their lives and helped get them what they want.
- but it's just stupid pseudoscience, even BBC news said that!
10👍 2👎
Formerly a descriptor for practices claiming to be scientific with no evidence in favor of the practice, the term "Pseudoscience" has unfortunately devolved into a catch-all pejorative term for anything that doesn't align with the majority opinion of self-proclaimed "intellectuals" who will create 1500+ word essays on why you're wrong and why you should "TRUST THE SCIENCE". Because of the modern redefinition of the term, several harmless beliefs and hobbies (eg. Cryptozoology, Astrology, Ufology) have been lumped into the same category as absolutely braindead theories that even fetuses would be able to identify as bullshit (eg. Flat earth), or genuinely dangerous beliefs and practices (eg. Horse Dewormer and Bleach as "cures" for COVID and other related quackery). Science actually sometimes relies on "Pseudoscientific" practices to make new breakthroughs. For example, Plate tectonics used to be given no credibility, but are now generally accepted.
The term is now systemically abused heavily on Wikipedia due to said site's high reliance on secondary sources. Said secondary sources (mostly editorials on popular news magazine websites) heavily abuse the term "pseudoscience", especially when talking about those who are politically right-wing (while ignoring left-wing pseudoscientific, or at least denialist movements such as the anti-GMO or anti-nuclear energy movements).
Person 1: Hey, check out this cool cryptid book i got!
Person 2: Aww sweet! My favorite is the Bunyip, i wonder what it'll look li-
"Expert": ACKSHUALLY CRYPTOZOOLOGY IS PSEUDOSCIENCE AND IF YOU FOLLOW IT YOU ARE A RIGHT WING ANTI-MASK NAZI WHO THINKS THE EARTH IS FLAT
Persons 1 and 2: Dude wtf
6👍 2👎
The pseudoscience problem is a logical and pragmatic problem that understands the category of "pseudoscience" as a vague and bad category for analisys, since it can have a confuse using and even having inconsistent using majority of times, such as the neoatheist and materialist use of the term "pseudoscience" that might refer to everything that is not scientific and even to religious, spiritual, occult, supernatural, philosophical, cultural, social, political and economical themes.
"The pseudoscience problem shows how pseudoscience concept might be really inconsistent and problematic sometimes, mainly when used by neoatheists and materialists... We might need get into a new classification for scientific and non-scientific categories and even, maybe, counter neoatheism and materialism inside science, for avoid problems such as the pseudoscience problem."
"The pseudoscience problem is a good way to understand why we should be pragmatic and relativist inside scientific and non-scientific issues, mainly if it is about evidences, since we have evidences of all kinds, not just scientific evidences, it is even useful for show the cult to scientific/objective evidences might be countered inside science and the formulation of new ways to search for evidences and even adopt epistemological anarchism for openly scientific and non-scientific themes, since the scientific method might have its own problems such as pseudoscience concept."
11👍 1👎
Soft and Hard Pseudoscience is a stance that divides pseudosciences into two main kinds, soft and hard. Soft pseudosciences are things considered as pseudosciences that might be considered as science in the future or that cannot be proved, disproved or determined by natural sciences or even that doesn't want to be considered as science, such as astral projection, mediumship, deistology, parapsychology, psychic phenomena, mystical experiences, extraphysics, conscientology, multiverses, esoterics, spirituality, religion, divination, occult sciences, spiritual sciences and occultism. While hard pseudosciences are things considered as pseudosciences because they can be proved, disproved or determined by natural sciences or even that wants to predent to be a science, such as flat Earth, climate denial, antivax and homeopathy. And soft pseudosciences can be often referred as parasciences or as extrasciences.
"The soft and hard pseudoscience division might be really good, such as the soft and hard science denial division, but it might be necessary to wait some time until this division become a reality."
5👍 2👎
A science that doesn't pretend to be fact or accurate (like real science), where someone could say just about anything and people would still think it sounded good, kind of like religion.
People like astrology for the same reason they like religion, it's bullshit that sounds good (and doesn't have to come with a bunch of numbers that sound accurate like science or math). Calling it a pseudoscience is deceptive because it makes all other sciences sound responsible, true, and real when scientists are really the least socially responsible people, just like astrologers, except scientists are worse because people take their information as fact and not misinformation.