4 Answers

  1. A person with a scientific worldview in disputes, most likely, will try to bring sources to their arguments, will not think in absolute categories: “ouryours,” they are all…”, but rather, will adhere to a probabilistic approach. Умеет Can analyze sources of information,for example, in the news to separate facts from the personal opinion of the journalist and emotions. Although, for all this, you do not need to be a scientist. Much depends on people: a deep knowledge of scientific disciplines does not guarantee a scientific worldview. The point is the culture of thinking and working on yourself, this may or may not be the result of scientific activity.

    But be aware that if your interlocutor jumped from the topic of space to the fact that he read a good horoscope for himself today,that he cured a cold with homeopathy and then crossed himself as he passed by the temple, this is a reason to be wary).

  2. If you are not well versed in the topic and are only looking for answers to your questions, then I suggest using such “indicators” that you are looking at another freak and not a scientist :

    • Sooner or later, explaining why he is the only one who is so smart, everyone will come to a conspiracy theory. And also to concepts like “official science”. In the scientific community, there is no one to develop an “official opinion” and this is a very unfavorable environment for any global “conspiracies” – scientists are decentralized. They live in different, sometimes warring, states, work in a variety of structures (and receive money from them for this), including for both states and private companies, adhere to a variety of religious and political views, and are “warmed up” by the spirit of competition. Therefore, all conspiracy theories immediately give us not quite a scientist

    • Use well-established terms freely and create your own terminology. It is difficult to give adequate unambiguously interpreted definitions to the terms used , or to formulate what is said in “ordinary language” in accordance with established scientific terminology.

    • Appeal to the “broad masses”, and the desire to convince the ordinary reader of their rightness. A real researcher tries to convince other specialists that he is right. He doesn't need” hall support”. And in any case, in the world of science, it is worthless. Popularizers usually explain the achievements of science in “more understandable words”, but they never try to prove their case to the reader, they have a different goal. In the text of the charlatan, there is always a clear intention to enlist the support of the masses.

    • The” tactic ” of using flattery is very popular : the charlatan claims that he simply gives bare facts and offers to form his own opinion (of course, coinciding with the author's conclusion), hinting that after reading his brooch , you are already sufficiently prepared for this. Neither popularizers nor scientists use such things. His arguments sound convincing and it is difficult for a person to admit that they can only be convincing for a “layman”. In general, if you are offered to evaluate the author's hypothesis, then this is a reason to be wary.

    • Very often , in the place where you should prove the perfection of your ideas – criticism of others. And logic from the category: if in such and such a theory something does not add up, is not explained, or has not yet been fully clarified, then this proves my assumption.� But logic dictates that even the fallacy or falsity of some statements does not imply the truth of others.

    • Often, freaks try to explain the unknown to other unknowns.� The most common example is UFOs – непонят strange spots on photos/videos are explained by alien aircraft,� with unknown performance characteristics and generally it is not known what they are. As a result of such an explanation, we do not learn anything new. Answers from science also often add new questions, but science rejects any explanations that do not add the amount of known information from the threshold.

    • References to authority, � and an attempt to represent authority� as proof. Quotes from a wide variety of scientists, up to Einstein, always emphasizing their authority.� Although it should be obvious,� that in science, it doesn't matter what the scientist Petrov said, only what he proved is important. And the key word is not” scientist “but ” proved”. Therefore, scientific articles do not cite “quotes from great scientists” as evidence, but “links to specific studies” with evidence.

  3. There are catchphrases, the most common of which is “Official Science”. “Official science is dominated by the opinion” ” Official science is in no hurry to recognize…”. After that, you don't have to read it – you are dealing with a person who does not bother to get acquainted with the achievements of science, preferring to them his great and unique ideas that should turn everything ™ – usually boring, groundless banality that cannot be verified or confirmed by experiment.

    UPD: If more detailed, then in science there is the Popper criterion, which can be applied to anyone, not just scientists. In natural science, a hypothesis is considered scientific if it:

    1. Verifiable – that is, it can be experimentally proven.
    2. Falsifiable – it can be experimentally refuted.
      �The experiment should be repeatable. Accordingly, there are hypotheses that, for a given degree of error, are

    3. Confirmed – and this does not mean that they are “true” – only that they describe reality well on these scales

    4. Refuted – and then, in order to say that they are still true, you need to at least suggest some other natural science experiment

    5. Unverified ones – that's what colliders are built for, for example.
      There are also two non-natural sciences, but nevertheless extremely important scientific disciplines: history and mathematics. There is no possibility to conduct an experiment in them. In history, because a historical event is always a one-time event, and its reliability has to be established based on as many indirect data as possible, including experimental data. In mathematics, there is simply no experiment: truth or falsity (or unprovability, see Godel's theorem) is determined based on the axioms and rules of inference chosen by the researcher. Somewhere between mathematics and the natural sciences, then, is theoretical physics.

    So, the catchphrase described above belongs to fans of pseudoscience (there are enough of them on tQ), who prefer the third “principle”:

    1. Convention-many people believe in the truth of the hypothesis.

    It is convenient for these people to think that the principle of convention in official science is unshakable, and the academy is “closed” to them only because of the “stagnation of authorities”. Well, not because their knowledge does not even reach the level of a first-year student in the chosen discipline, that's right! Evil is opposed to the “official science” is usually something like “yogi owes nothing to prove, everyone is free to test for yourself”, “Hagia a Y, in contrast to the transcendental metagalactic”; or, if you have a larger number of followers, its “sovereign” the Convention “science is a religion”, “our own truth”. Accordingly, the emphasis is placed on quoting authorities who are credited with fantastic achievements.

    Using this latter method, such people like to mimic science. They mostly cover themselves with science-like words. So, “non-commutative relativistic quantum crystallography” in their mouths can mean something like the following:

    “We sat down and started drawing kristalchik – that is, doing crystallography. We were silent, that is, we did not communicate – so crystallography was non-commutative. We applied the theory of relativity due to the fact that we were sitting on different sides relative to the crystal. Kristalchik influenced us, and we influenced the spiritual energies of kristalchik – and this is the basic principle of quantum mechanics, that the fact of observation affects the observed. As a result, we made a quantum transition to another dimension, located in the nearest coffee shop.”

    There are still many nuances. So, a favorite technique of pseudo-historians is something like this: “Carthage in Phoenician means Novgorod, both are the capitals of trading powers, both lost to a militarized competitor. Ergo: Ilmen Lake is the Mediterranean Sea.” Unfortunately, pseudoscience is so extensive that it would be necessary to have separate departments dedicated to its study and classification, where people would write dissertations. I don't have the opportunity to write a dissertation in the tQ response field, so I'll take the liberty of taking my leave.

    UUPD: And just recently, a portal dedicated to pseudoscience has appeared.

Leave a Reply