What is pseudoscience really?

[Danioover9000]

   Google definition, from Oxord:

pseudoscience

/ˈs(j)uːdəʊˌsʌɪəns/

noun

a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

"the new pseudoscience of ‘counselling’"

 

   First of all, we definitely need a more robust definition of pseudoscience, the current one is just lacking even in common sense. Also, there's a problem with some terms within that definition that needs unpacking, for instance what scientific method, and which scientific method is being referred to here, and by implication the methodology, epistemology and ontology assumed as the background for whichever scientific method cited here? This question is important to answer and clarify first because whatever your answer to which scientific method is here, determines the degree of the mistake regarded as being based on that type of scientific method, which could also further imply determination some of the nature of said 'collection of beliefs' or 'practices'(quotes of terms that need further defining or at least explaining of these premises in order to determine the degree of misperception, or mistaken regarding that such collection of beliefs/practices are based on scientific method).

   A few quick examples of pseudoscience: Gestalt therapy, R.E.B.T, or other alternative forms of therapy/counseling, Body language analysis, psychic methods and psychic phenomena, new age spiritual methods like witchcraft, psychic, mediums(communicating to ghosts/spirits/deceased loved ones and so on...), meditation, spiritual technics, Yoga for some time, occult methods like scrying on a crystal ball or black mirrors, soul traveling, astral projection, and many other sub fields within the supernatural/paranormal categories like Big Foot and other Cryptids, astrology, Chinese medicine and might as well Chinese anything to do with Chi or vital points, and many more historical methods and fields mainstream science considers outdated and 'woowoo'. 

   IMO, based on many developmental factors like Spiral Dynamics stages of development(by Don Beck and Clare Graves) cognitive and moral development, personality types/traits(Myers Briggs personality types modal and the big five personality traits modal), 9 stages of ego development(by Jane Loevinger), Architypes(by Carl Jung), Integral Theory's other lines of development in personal life to societal domains(by Ken Wilbur), other ideological beliefs indoctrinated from cultural programming, family upbringing, and the information ecology we as consumers intake via news, radio, TV programs, online videos, shorts, social media feeds, and many information points that big companies manufacture consent from the masses and engineer conspicuous consumption for. Based on many of these factors I consider people who too quickly insult a person or a given field as 'pseudoscience' as immature minded and ignorant that science itself has hard and soft categories of science. For example, I don't consider body language analysis as a 'pseudoscience' but rather within the 'soft science' category which is similar to the humanities, psychology, sociology and sciences that focuses on qualitative research, approaches and methods/methodology/epistemology/ontology, and anyone slipping in the assumption that because it's not like hard sciences like engineering, technologies, chemistry, biology, mathematics, or any of those sciences that focuses on quantitative research, approaches and methods/methodology/epistemoloy/ontology, are basically misinforming the public when they label and critic a field as 'pseudoscience', just like this video here:

   Which IMO is a bit ignorant, immature and generalizes too much.

   Share your thoughts and feelings on times when scientists, or ironically 'pseudoscientists' like in YouTube, actually IMO dogmatic and deluded debunk skeptics with serious hubris problems,

[Yimpa]

Pseudoscience can be considered a survival strategy to protect the integrity of the scientific paradigm. 

If you want to do good science and be respected by your scientific peers and follow the rules of accredited institutions, then pseudoscience should be avoided.

[Carl-Richard]

It's a term that tends to pop up once the status quo gets challenged (by a competing paradigm), or more curiously when the status quo challenges itself (inside its own paradigm). An example of the former is research on psychic phenomena, and an example of the latter is singling out the causes of the replication crisis. It can pertain to how we should do science in a particular field (e.g. using null hypothesis testing or Bayesian analysis, using survey data or direct observations), or which fields we can consider scientific (e.g. psychology, medicine, physics). There have been many classical attempts by philosophers of science to provide a clear demarcation criterion (what is science vs. pseudoscience), but today, many things we consider science seem to reliably fall outside those criteria, for example the criteria of falsification (Karl Popper), verification (logical positivists) or generating novel predictions (Imre Lakatos).

Edited January 7 by Carl-Richard

[Danioover9000]

@Yimpa

19 hours ago, Yimpa said:

Pseudoscience can be considered a survival strategy to protect the integrity of the scientific paradigm. 

If you want to do good science and be respected by your scientific peers and follow the rules of accredited institutions, then pseudoscience should be avoided.

   It's just like what @Leo Gura has said in his part series about the mythology of science, the deep problems with it.

   Also, for those wondering, yes I am biased against Scientists especially rationalists for personal events and just being treated as crazy for my paranormal experience, plus hate that judgementalism and aloofness, and intellectual hubris even though sometimes science can be wrong, flat out dogmatic, which is why I have this feeling that science and religion are similar in many aspects despite surface level differences.

[Yimpa]

@Danioover9000 you don’t have to give up your woo-woo ways. You can integrate it with the rational, but that requires a high degree of acceptance and love for all perspectives.

[Danioover9000]

@Carl-Richard

18 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

It's a term that tends to pop up once the status quo gets challenged (by a competing paradigm), or more curiously when the status quo challenges itself (inside its own paradigm). An example of the former is research on psychic phenomena, and an example of the latter is singling out the causes of the replication crisis. It can pertain to how we should do science in a particular field (e.g. using null hypothesis testing or Bayesian analysis, using survey data or direct observations), or which fields we can consider scientific (e.g. psychology, medicine, physics). There have been many classical attempts by philosophers of science to provide a clear demarcation criterion (what is science vs. pseudoscience), but today, many things we consider science seem to reliably fall outside those criteria, for example falsification (Karl Popper), verification (logical positivists), generating novel predictions (Imre Lakatos).

   Great post, mostly agree with points here. I just feel like this YouTuber doing the critiquing of body language analysis as a pseudoscience was doing deep levels of category error, hypocrisy, over-generalizing a specific issue, as if 1 scammer in 1 field of interest makes that field pseudoscience. and even has her own confirmation biases in her coverage against body language 'experts'. Especially times when she repeatedly goes to that point of 'peer reviews' as if it's 100% not corrupted and zero epistemic flaws is just dishonest and ignorant IMO. I kind of agree with the Paul Eckmen stuff, about those micro expressions, but just felt she's using quantitative standards onto a qualitative field, I think, plus DARPA, CIA, FBI, and TLA are organizations and collective structures within the USA as a big culture and part of government security, to some degrees, obviously to me such groups are heavily biased to pragmatism. utilitarianism, and just want a codex or system for their survival interests, so Paul IMO was in some sort of a moral dilemma, of either going along with it or abandoning the whole project.

[Danioover9000]

@Yimpa

1 minute ago, Yimpa said:

@Danioover9000 you don’t have to give up your woo-woo ways. You can integrate it with the rational, but that requires a high degree of acceptance and love for all perspectives.

   I agree, I'm venting complexity at this point. It's just one of those videos you watch, and it's like there's so many mistakes, at the deeper levels too, that I can't help myself face slapping myself over. She's partly right on the scam stuff, but that doesn't make the whole field a pseudoscience, just immature take. How does YouTube live with itself?

[Yimpa]

Disagreements of opinions are like the different colors on this wheel. Different flavors; all part of the same Whole.

 

 

If ya zoom into Fear that’s all you will see (and perhaps a tiny glimpse of more; not knowing what those different colors mean)
 

 

Now imagine Fear fighting Joy. Both convince themselves that they understand or even are the Whole!
 

 

How lessself instead of selfless!

[Danioover9000]

@Yimpa

21 hours ago, Yimpa said:

@Danioover9000 you don’t have to give up your woo-woo ways. You can integrate it with the rational, but that requires a high degree of acceptance and love for all perspectives.

   But that's not the real issue here of me trying to preserve my biases and preferences and stage green values or takes. The real issue is her misinforming and misleading her audience and general public with pop science and virtue signaling mainstream science, and claiming that body language analysis is pseudoscience is a bad claim, only backed up not by corroborating evidence, but by her baseless claims of a lack of 'peer review', or her projecting hard sciences biased for quantitative research and methodologies, and she actually lacks any evidence to undermine body language analysis as a field, for instance she thinks that a lack of evidence = evidence of lack, which is wrong IMO because sometimes a lack of evidence just equals a lack of evidence, not evidence for lack. She mistakes and projects S.T.E.M standards onto a soft science like body language analysis, mostly qualitative research and methodology. IMO that's also deep category error from her.

[Danioover9000]

@Yimpa

20 hours ago, Yimpa said:

Disagreements of opinions are like the different colors on this wheel. Different flavors; all part of the same Whole.

 

 

If ya zoom into Fear that’s all you will see (and perhaps a tiny glimpse of more; not knowing what those different colors mean)
 

 

Now imagine Fear fighting Joy. Both convince themselves that they understand or even are the Whole!
 

 

How lessself instead of selfless!

   Firstly, I disagree with how you're reframing my argument as if it's just emotional outrage. Read my reply to another user here:

1 minute ago, Danioover9000 said:

@Yimpa

   But that's not the real issue here of me trying to preserve my biases and preferences and stage green values or takes. The real issue is her misinforming and misleading her audience and general public with pop science and virtue signaling mainstream science, and claiming that body language analysis is pseudoscience is a bad claim, only backed up not by corroborating evidence, but by her baseless claims of a lack of 'peer review', or her projecting hard sciences biased for quantitative research and methodologies, and she actually lacks any evidence to undermine body language analysis as a field, for instance she thinks that a lack of evidence = evidence of lack, which is wrong IMO because sometimes a lack of evidence just equals a lack of evidence, not evidence for lack. She mistakes and projects S.T.E.M standards onto a soft science like body language analysis, mostly qualitative research and methodology. IMO that's also deep category error from her.

   That's the real issue here.

[Ishanga]

I think most everything is pseudoscience today, the normal scientific community is corrupted by corporations, they only research and present findings that enhance the corporations sponsoring their projects. Whatever Science comes up with today, they report as this is the way it is, then 10 yrs later they find out pretty well none of it is reality or truth, but they explain it away as they are always researching and find out if their theories are true or not, but with ego's present they identify and fall into the trap of believing, I see it happening all the time, and her is Wolfgang Smith, world reputed Mathmatican and Phycists saying the samethings about modern day scientist and science in general, its mostly all BS..

 

[Danioover9000]

   Found a video also covering pseudoscience, interesting watch:

   Funny how establishment science perceives a threat from fringe science and things outside normality and defies explanation.