What is science?

What is pseudo science?

What's the delineation between them?

Is it a simple matter to distinguish between the two?

*for those in IB, i'm not trying to get you to do work for me, we've all ready done all our tok essays and i didn't do this question, i just thought it was intriguing and was about to do it, but didn't, and wonder what people think about it*

__________________
Long messages do not equal aggravation of any sort,
rather they reflect nothing more than a response of insight
that should always be read in a matter-of-fact tone.

"Those womyn that seek equality with men, lack determination."

"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be wrong."
-Cromwell

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

I think a pseudo science doesn't have a scientific base.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alchemist
I think a pseudo science doesn't have a scientific base.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alchemist
I think a pseudo science doesn't have a scientific base.

---

__________________
Long messages do not equal aggravation of any sort,
rather they reflect nothing more than a response of insight
that should always be read in a matter-of-fact tone.

"Those womyn that seek equality with men, lack determination."

"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be wrong."
-Cromwell

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

I think pseudo science doesn't have a mathematical base.
But I'm obsessed with math so leave me alone.
I believe the idea is to not define science with science because now you're infinite looping. That's why I think bio is a pseudo science because 1. I suck at it and 2. there's no math. I think 1 is an effect of 2 though. Or maybe I'm just in denial.

What time is it? Too late it seems.

__________________
When the day is done
you are all that is left

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

i like that definition actually, requiem's.

This is really interesting because me and another person today were just debating on what math was. He says it's a religion, and i said it was a science. So in my line of thinking i'd still be circular reasoning through defining science becuase i think math is a science in a way...hmm maybe, i'm not exactly set with my advocacy. What does everything think about this?

__________________
Long messages do not equal aggravation of any sort,
rather they reflect nothing more than a response of insight
that should always be read in a matter-of-fact tone.

"Those womyn that seek equality with men, lack determination."

"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be wrong."
-Cromwell

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Well, apparantly arguments can follow the scientific method of empirical observation and analysis, yet still be deemed pseudo-scientific; the race statisticians of the third reich springs most notably to my mind. Or, the recent cloning research, where the Raelians are called a bunch of science quacks.

Does the method of making an argument have anything to do with it? Or does the purpose of what something is trying to prove determine if it is worthy or unworthy. Does proper 'science' equate with adherence to the moral code of the masses?

__________________
"Wave of mutilation."
-The Pixies

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

yeah, but the scientific method doesn't have any substantiating prerequisite. I mean, it's just a procedure. The resolution you are yielded could be "yeah we don't have enough conclusive data to be able to generalize and say that different moon cycles of different planets associate themselves with the person who is born on the corresponding month in that their behavior is reflected on the subject depending on if the sun hits it or not" or whatever absurdity you can come up with, that wasn't that great i am sorry. I'm sleepy haha. Anyway, so they used the method but it didn't prove anything, but they received results....so it's still science if you choose the scientific method as the deciding factor. I don't like that standard. I think the scientific procedure's applicability to be used to other non science things such as any sort of research really makes it nothing more than a semantic truth. "Scientific" Method....psh, it's just a name....and just a method.

__________________
Long messages do not equal aggravation of any sort,
rather they reflect nothing more than a response of insight
that should always be read in a matter-of-fact tone.

"Those womyn that seek equality with men, lack determination."

"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be wrong."
-Cromwell

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged