Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
A concept can't be scientific or pseudoscientific at all: a concept is just a word that has some meaning. “Table “is no more a” scientific “concept than” alien from Alpha Centauri ” is a pseudoscientific one.
There must be a scientific or pseudoscientific statement. But this does not depend on the abstract “correctness”, which is almost impossible to determine, but on the criteria for obtaining and justifying this statement. For example, if I say, “when water freezes, it takes up a larger volume” – this is quite a scientific statement, because you can put an experiment in which we freeze water in a limited volume (for example, in a glass bottle) and see how this bottle bursts. But the statement “every human being is inherently good” is unscientific, not because it is wrong (maybe even right), but because there is no way to organize a correct and unambiguous verification of this statement. If I present to you a person who commits evil, you can object to me that the evil in him is from society or from bad upbringing, or from the fact that “he read wrong books as a child”, that is, nature is still good, and evil is a distortion of good nature. One more time: this does not mean that the statement is wrong, it is a worldview statement that we can fully adhere to in our lives, but then we should accept that there will be people who adhere to the exact opposite worldview statement, for example: “all people are wolves.” But with water, this will not work if we try to say that water decreases with freezing – we are absolutely wrong and we can convincingly show that we are wrong.
I'll quote myself:
Pseudo-and pseudoscience are synonymous in this case. Agreement or disagreement is generated precisely by the consensus about the method.
As has been correctly pointed out, it is not a question of the truth of statements at all, since science is an activity, and not a product of this activity. Its product is knowledge.
Not so. Pseudoscience differs from science not in the degree of correctness/fallacy, but in the fundamental rejection of the scientific method. The phlogiston theory is flawed, but it is scientific for its time. On the contrary, ufology is based on a quite reasonable idea about the non-uniqueness of human civilization, but this does not make it scientific.
“PSEUDOSCIENCE” is a pseudoscientific concept, since any knowledge contains both the correct and incorrect (erroneous or unknown) part.
All the generally accepted sciences and theories are like this.
The only possible exception is the sciences and theories that are deliberately and maliciously created with negative destructive goals – such sciences can be conditionally called pseudoscientific, because they contain deliberate lies. But even such sciences and theories, when skilfully created, contain most of the correct information.
The SLEDGEHAMMER of the “PSEUDOSCIENCE” type, as a tool of war, was cleverly used against Lobachevsky and Gauss with disastrous consequences for these scientists and their work.
Science : a field of human activity that aims to collect, accumulate, classify, analyze, generalize, transmit and use reliable information, build new or improve existing theories that allow us to adequately describe natural (natural sciences, natural sciences) or social (humanities) processes and predict their development and application of the theoretical knowledge obtained.
So?