.
Science vs. Pseudoscience
Frequently in these debates we encounter pseudoscience or junk science. This (from somewhere on the web) outlines some of the differences:
Science: Follows the evidence wherever it leads
Pseudoscience: Starts with a conclusion, then works backwards to confirm
Science: Embraces criticism
Pseudoscience: Hostile to criticism
Science: Uses precise terminology with clear definitions
Pseudoscience: Uses vague jargon to confuse and evade
Science: Claims are conservative and tentative
Pseudoscience: Grandiose claims that go beyond the evidence
Science: Properly considers all evidence and arguments
Pseudoscience: Cherry picks only favorable evidence, relies on testimonials or weak evidence
Science: Uses rigorous and repeatable methods
Pseudoscience: Uses flawed methods with unrepeatable results
Science: Engages with peers and community
Pseudoscience: Lone mavericks working in isolation
Science: Follows careful and valid logic
Pseudoscience: Uses inconsistent and invalid logic
Science: Changes with new evidence
Pseudoscience: Dogmatic and unyielding
Science vs. Pseudoscience
Moderator: Moderators
-
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 25089
- Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 10:38 pm
- Location: Bible Belt USA
- Has thanked: 40 times
- Been thanked: 73 times
Science vs. Pseudoscience
Post #1.
Non-Theist
ANY of the thousands of "gods" proposed, imagined, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or fought over by humans MAY exist -- awaiting verifiable evidence
Non-Theist
ANY of the thousands of "gods" proposed, imagined, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or fought over by humans MAY exist -- awaiting verifiable evidence
Re: Science vs. Pseudoscience
Post #2[Replying to post 1 by Zzyzx]
Those are some good points to bear in mind. Glad you shared them here because so many get caught up in creation-science, which is bad science and bad theology as well.
Those are some good points to bear in mind. Glad you shared them here because so many get caught up in creation-science, which is bad science and bad theology as well.