1 2 3  5 6 7 8 16
I'm not sure what pseudoscience is.
MW gives a poor definition:
a system of theories, assumptions, and methods erroneously regarded as scientific
because it uses in its explanation part of the term to be defined, which raises the question: what is "scientific"?
Was Archimede a scietist?
Was Sir Isaac Newton a scientist by today's standards?

Did Archimede and Newton made their discoveries by a "legitimate process" as described by Mr Cooper above?
I tend to believe that in many instances "pseudoscience" is a matter of opinion.
I'm not even really sure what the "Freudian theory" is - or consists of - but I wonder at labeling ... developed theories based on his observations and findings. As long as he developed these theories within standard scientific research boundaries,

That's exactly where the problem is.
Here's AHD's summary of the classic principles of "scientific method":

the observation of phenomena,
the formulation of a hypothesis concerning the phenomena, experimentation to demonstrate the truth or falseness of the hypothesis,
and a conclusion that validates or modifies the hypothesis.

Freud certainly observed, and he formulated hypotheses, but did he conduct suitable experiments and draw conclusions?
they would qualify as "scientific theory". If the theories are later proven to be wrong or doubtful, they don't become ... scientific. I have no opinion on the validity of the theories. I just wonder about the use of "psuedoscience" there.

By the way, you'll get farther with "pseudoscience."

Best Donna Richoux
Students: We have free audio pronunciation exercises.
Arcadian Rises wrote on 28 Apr 2004:
I'm not sure what pseudoscience is. I tend to believe that in many instances "pseudoscience" is a matter of opinion.

You will soon receive a dissertation in reply from Raymond Wise, an expert on pseudoscience. Fear not. It will all become clear.

Franke: EFL teacher & medical editor.
For email, ehziuh htiw rehpycrebyc ecalper.
I'm not even really sure what the "Freudian theory" is - or consists of - but I wonder at labeling ... legitimate process that results in a theory that is later discounted by other legitimate process-developed theories is no less scientific.

Freud did not use the scientific method when promulgating his theories. It doesn't look to me like what we call 'science' today or what was considered 'science' back then (in the strict English sense). There have been a few efforts to validate Freudian theories by scientific experimentation (one that I remember learning about in Psych
105 was one that attempted to support Freud's theory about stuttering),but in general nothing too impressive has come out of that FWIU.

I don't know whether "pseudoscience" is fair, because I'm not sure that Freud & Co. ever really asserted that their whole school of psychoanalytic theory was a "science" (in that strict sense). A lot of people were captivated by Freudian stuff for many decades, but that doesn't mean they regarded it as a 'science'.
I'm not even really sure what the "Freudian theory" is ... as he developed these theories within standard scientific research boundaries,

That's exactly where the problem is. Here's AHD's summary of the classic principles of "scientific method": the observation of phenomena, ... or modifies the hypothesis. Freud certainly observed, and he formulated hypotheses, but did he conduct suitable experiments and draw conclusions?

Could he? It's not like observing the workings of the mind is like watching to see at what point water boils. Are the conclusions drawn by a psychiatrist subject to the same rules of scientific method as the rules of, say, a physicist?
I have no opinion on the validity of the theories. I just wonder about the use of "psuedoscience" there.

By the way, you'll get farther with "pseudoscience."

I faked the spelling.
Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.
I tend to believe that in many instances "pseudoscience" is a matter of opinion.

And also a matter of chronology: yesterday's science becomes today's pseudoscience, and, I dare say, vice versa.
You will soon receive a dissertation in reply from Raymond Wise, an expert on pseudoscience. Fear not. It will all become clear.

I can't figure out the 'tone of your voice' so I'm going to take it at its face value. I'm looking forward to the dissertation.
Arcadian Rises wrote on 28 Apr 2004:
And also a matter of chronology: yesterday's science becomes today's pseudoscience, and, I dare say, vice versa.

You will soon receive a dissertation in reply from Raymond Wise, an expert on pseudoscience. Fear not. It will all become clear.

I can't figure out the 'tone of your voice' so I'm going to take it at its face value. I'm looking forward to the dissertation.

I am being slightly serious. I fully expect Raymond to explain pseudoscience to you, using parapsychology as his archetypical example of pseudoscience.

Franke: EFL teacher & medical editor.
For email, ehziuh htiw rehpycrebyc ecalper.
My pseudoscientific, or pseudointellectual question: how many scientific discoveries were accomplished without following with scientific precision the above procedure?
Are all those inventors (who didn't follow the scientific procedure) pseudo-scientists?
Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?
Thus spake CyberCypher:
Arcadian Rises wrote on 28 Apr 2004:

I'm not sure what pseudoscience is.

I tend to believe that in many instances "pseudoscience" is a matter of opinion.

You will soon receive a dissertation in reply from Raymond Wise, an expert on pseudoscience. Fear not. It will all become clear.

Sarcasm doesn't becomes you, Franke.

Simon R. Hughes
Show more