/tech/ - Where do you draw the line between science and pseudo-science? With polar extremes like "Astrology" and Chemistry, most people are in agreeance with which side of the fence they lie on, but psychology is less clear. If science is the study of natural pheno

Name
Email
Subject	Spoiler Image
Comment formatting options
File
Password	(For file deletion.)

File: 1554774906485.jpg (230.54 KB, 850x1222, __cuderia_von_feuerbach_an….jpg)

Unnamed 2019/04/09 (Tue) 01:55:06 No.2543

Where do you draw the line between science and pseudo-science? With polar extremes like "Astrology" and Chemistry, most people are in agreeance with which side of the fence they lie on, but psychology is less clear. If science is the study of natural phenomena through controlled and reproducible means of evidence gathering and model building, there's a lot of wiggle room. Does string theory count as "real science"? Even within the realm of theoretical physics, it's shaky in how more and more is added to the model to justify itself(i'm not knowledgeable on it, but I know a mathematician who's skeptical), which is like coming to a conclusion first before gathering any evidence.

Even if evidence is gathered in a rigorous setting, there's a tendency for scientists to find results they were looking for. One published paper on psychic phenomena had plenty of empirical evidence backing up that was collected with rigorous procedures.
https://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/follow-up-on-bems-psi-research/

;-; 2019/04/09 (Tue) 06:42:52 No.2544

I am generally skeptical as we all should be. You should be able to understand a study before you put weight in it's result.

It's not "coming to a conclusion first before gathering any evidence" as long as you don't state as fact things that have no evidence. After all, in order to have evidence, you need a falsifiable premise.
People still design experiments to put these ideas to the test though, like the recent results from LIGO and CERN.
Also, it's not like we have no evidence for such things. things like string theory try to simplify the laws we already know into a consistent theory.

>I know a mathematician who's skeptical
it's good to be skepitical; so is every scientist who's worth half their weight in salt.
>Does string theory count as "real science"?
That depends on why you are creating a term "real science".
If you mean to ask if it's a useful line of inquiry, then i would say probably so.
If you mean to ask if it's been shown to have any real-world implications, then i don't know.

Occult Cyberwarrior 2019/04/09 (Tue) 17:34:54 No.2545

It's actually pretty easy to tell them apart, put the word "applied" in front of it. What do you think applied astrology entails? You are a salesmen for useless soykaf that's what.

Rachael 2019/04/09 (Tue) 19:11:33 No.2546

>>2545
Applied Marxism-Leninism.

Officer K 2019/04/09 (Tue) 19:24:41 No.2547

File: 1554837881519.gif (356.75 KB, 584x893, EE8A949D-2876-4FDC-94CE-7B….gif)

>>2544
>as long as you don't state as fact things that have no evidence
Science isn't entirely made up of facts. Gravity isn't a "fact". Nearly everything in science is capable of being disproven.
>string theory try to simplify the laws we already know into a consistent theory.
Adding 10+ dimensions to make something work mathematically doesn't seem like simplifying to me. Quantum physics is "harder" than theoretical physics and there's a lot less reason to be skeptical of the existence of subatomic particles than strings.
>That depends on why you are creating a term "real science".
I'm asking what other people think. If you don't think there's a correct answer, that's an answer in itself.
>>2545
Lots of science only became applicable far after being conceived(Charles Babbage). Does it only become real science after that point? Psychology can be applied and astrology can too(fortune telling or something).