Discussions

Anonymous Icon

Pseudoscience? To whom

Posted Sept. 4, 2011 by Thedeafening in Community Groups

commented on April 6, 2012
by slowlygetnthar

Quote

14

I was digging around on IANDS web and found a link to an old ABC report on the show Night-line. The show faced a pair if skeptics one I believed is called "Shermer" and An author Harris. The other group a physicist who shared ideas about electrons and the vibrations they create can relate to a universal spirit that created the universe. The skeptics said this is all junk science and believes neuroscience can explain that our brains our curious to creation and wonder, so it makes up patterns and forms imaginative things like ghosts and spirit. I have read a lot on both sides but it seems that science and science cant seem to coexist, so who is the pseudoscientist?

  • 14 Comments  
  • slowlygetnthar Apr 06, 2012


    Science does nothing. Scientists do.

    Second of all, many scientists are as dogmatic about the narrow parameters of their disciplines as religious zealots are about their dogma.

    I am not anti-science or scientists. I am anti-narrow-mindedness. Yes, I do think it is hubristic of scientists to refuse to study certain phenomena because they haven't developed reliable measures and methods for verifying and replicating results and sit around poo-pooing the ghost hunters, channelers, psychics, clairvoyants, clairaudients, those believing they are reincarnated, and those claiming experiences with unknown entitities: faeries, aliens, gnomes, Loch Nessie, etc.,...(not that there aren't plenty of charlatans who should be disregarded).

    Occasionally, a scientist with integrity comes along, like the late Dr. John Mack of Harvard, who is willing to forego the criticism of his peers and colleagues to push the envelope of science and try to figure out what is going on. Kudos to them. I know too many, though, who will argue til the cows come home that ESP, aliens, reincarnation don't exist because "science" has not proved them. If scientists are supposed to investigate the unknown to acheive answers, why are they sitting on their butts, poo-poo-ing instead of seizing opportunities for research? Gee, lack of funding for such research is one reason. The main reason, however, is lack of will. It is MUCH EASIER TO SIT AROUND AND SAY SOMETHING DOES NOT EXIST THAN TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO DESIGN A WAY TO MEASURE IT AND INVESTIGATE UNUSUAL PHENOMENA.

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Apr 03, 2012

    @ slow
    Is that the only part of the comment you disagree with?
    I find the statement you made ludicrous because it demonstrate a lack of understand as to what science is: the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiments. You go on and add that the scientific community has "a tendency" toward saying "something simply doesn't exist if it cannot be measured". Again, science systematically studies structure, behaviors of the physical and nature world.
    It seems to me there were also supporting statements that I made, and that you are ignored: "While science may not be as exact as we might like, it asks to be challenged, and does self correct."

    Philosophers debate ideas that can not be settled, and the debate is endless. Religion has the convenience of saying God is the reason for everything. Gods created everything.
    Science knows it is not religion. it does not have an answer for everything only theories which it continues to refine. It does search to discover more about everything and does not stop at faith or endless conjecture .

    .

  • slowlygetnthar Apr 03, 2012

    I am chuckling. Dustproduction says: Statements such as, "Sciences have not evolved to the point where they can explain everything." are easy to make but are terrible inaccurate. So lets stop making them. We know better."

    No, I won't stop making the statements, such as SCIENCES HAVE NOT EVOLVED TO THE POINT WHERE THEY CAN EXPLAIN EVERYTHING, so STOP PRETENDING THEY HAVE.

    IF SCIENCE CAN'T PROVE PHENOMENA, SUCH AS "PARANORMAL" EVENTS, SCIENTISTS CLAIM THE PHENOMENA DOES NOT EXIST, INSTEAD OF SCIENTIFICALLY INVESTIGATING IT OR TRYING TO DEVELOP METHODS OF INQUIRY INTO THE PHENOMENA.

    There! I said it because it is true.

  • Anonymous Icon

    Thedeafening Apr 02, 2012

    Thanks I'll check it out

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Apr 02, 2012

    There is a new book out called, "The War of World Views" that I highly recommend.
    http://www.amazon.com/War-Worldviews-Science-Vs-Spirituality/dp/0307886883

    The problem as I see it is that spirituality can never provide any evidence to support itself beliefs. It suffers from the same problem that psychology does; it developed symbols to define unexplained phenomena, such as the id and ego, and the soul.

  • Anonymous Icon

    Thedeafening Apr 02, 2012

    Yeah, I was quick in putting psedoscience upon those people. I think I found it nessisary concerning the characters in the show. In many debates between those who follow material science and those who are NewAge, there is a insult thrown at the one can't prove it scientifically right then right now. And in the Skeptic and neuroscience arts, I see a lot of negativity show towards this stuff, basically implying it wishfull psedoscience. However if Shermer or Harris didnt say things to imply that, I owe them my sincere appologies.

  • Anonymous Icon

    Thedeafening Apr 02, 2012

    I guess

  • slowlygetnthar Apr 02, 2012


    Cybernetics was never a pseudo science, from what I recall. Norbert Weiner coined the term "Cybernetics," meaning steersman, when he and a team of all kinds of scholars were engineering the first drones in WWII. There was nothing pseudo about their science.

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Apr 01, 2012

    First of all the people you are describing here are Michael Shermer: "Michael Shermer, as head of one of America’s leading skeptic organizations, and as a powerful activist and essayist in the service of this operational form of reason, is an important figure in American public life." Stephen Jay Gould. Michael Shermer debunks myths, superstitions and urban legends, and explains why we believe them. Along with publishing Skeptic Magazine, he's author of Why People Believe Weird Things and The Mind of the Market.
    And Sam Harris: "Read Sam Harris and wake up." Richard Dawkins. Harris received a degree in philosophy from Stanford and a Ph.D. in neuroscience from UCLA. He is the co-founder and CEO of Project Reason, a nonprofit devoted to spreading scientific knowledge and secular values in society.
    Now secondly, if someone in this discussion chat board has better credentials please let my know.
    Statements such as, "Sciences have not evolved to the point where they can explain everything." are easy to make but are terrible inaccurate. So lets stop making them. We know better. While science may not be as exact as we might like it asks to be challenged and does self correct. Philosopher debate ideas that can not be settle, and the debate is endless.
    Pseudosciences are defined as "a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method."

    But back to ABC's Nightline program. You wrote, "other group a physicist who shared ideas about electrons and the vibrations." I am assuming you mean Deepak Chopra, a physician and best-selling author of "How to Know God," and prominent scholar, philosopher and writer Jean Houston.
    Watch the exchange: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLwnqDvlXqI&feature=player_embedded#!

    Excerpt from a debate on the question "Does God Have a Future?" presented by ABC's Nightline on 2010/3/23. The participants were Sam Harris, Michael Shermer, Deepak Chopra and Jean Houston. The moderator was Dan Harris.

    The full debate can be viewed at http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/FaceOff/. This excerpt starts at 6:44 in the segment entitled "Science Can Explain Life."

    I am not seeing where the word "pseudoscience use here? Maybe it was.
    But I will finish with the point. See how easy it was for me to assemble what it was you were pointing to? And yet other people commenting here were eager to debate their OPINIONS rather than understand the question.

    This amazes me to no end, but it shouldn't

  • Anonymous Icon

    BECHAMEL Feb 04, 2012

    A reply to the deafening;

    When you refer to we, must point to what you may already recognize and that is particular of the various we have an unshake_able faith as opposed to a state of inquiry such as that you describe.

    New age (whatever that is), religion as well as science let alone what people term pseudosci, can be all taken out of context and misapplied, unfortunately.

  • Anonymous Icon

    Thedeafening Jan 25, 2012

    Hi everyone, it's been a good while since I last commented. On the subject, I used to have a good rebutal - when some asks well why have faith or believe in anything I would say because we have the ability to do so. However it would would seem that a curious mind over time would grow into somthing like us people have now, in other words is this ability the product of perfect brain evolving an feeding on synthesis making sense of it all or is there more to it.

  • truthseeker999 Sep 16, 2011

    there is a quite interesting new "pseudo-science" in Russia that I recently found - Infosomatics: http://www.lifexpert.com/infosomatics/ it actually talks about measuring mental bodies (memory bodies) of humans using torsion physics. The scientist researcher of Infosomatics (V.V. Gubanov) pointed out in one of his articles a very good point as to pseudo sciences: Gynetics and Cybernetics used to be pseudo sciences at one point, right? Throughout the history the only way the scientific paradigm was changed is through the death of the old one and appearing of the new one. Fish doesn't know that it lives under water until it crawls to the shore. People thought the Earth was flat for a long time. Practice is the criteria of truth... current conservative scientists might not believe in "pseudo sciences" but if those sciences are true and use laws of Nature it is just a matter of time. Nevertheless, it can't just happen overnight.... "quantity has to shift into quality"....

  • Anonymous Icon

    Thedeafening Sep 07, 2011

    Thank you Slowlygetnthar, I guess I should have known what to expect on the show, seeing as most if not all skeptics tend to use the same way of having their way in an argument. But thats what you will find in a bias controlled network.

  • slowlygetnthar Sep 06, 2011


    Neither is pseudoscience. Sciences have not evolved to the point where they can explain everything. There is a tendency in the scientific community to say something simply doesn't exist if it cannot be measured, replicated in experiment, and explained. This is myopic and arrogant.

    Neuroscience is in its infancy. We don't know how our own brains work as electromagnetic circuitry, processors, projectors, and receivers. I think what we are seeing is not fear of the unknown, but scientists being afraid to be seen as not knowing--not having all the answers.

    What IONS is researching is pretty cutting edge and important work. What's cool is that we live in a time where we are allowed to explore these sciences and concepts that would have resulted in accusations of heresy a few centuries ago. No one is being burned at the stake, these days, for this very sort of discussion.

    Don't be discouraged. Slowly, science will eventually catch up. It just may not occur in our lifetimes.

  • or Sign Up to Add a Comment

Stay in touch with IONS