The Psuedoscience Thread

[Erik_Twice]

"The problem with an open mind is that people will insist in putting stuff into it"

[ded srs]

Eh, I've always thought science was as relative to its own time period as any other subject. Whether what our current scientists find out is right or wrong or not really doesn't matter in the grand scheme of history, because in 200 years we could all believe something completely different that would today seem too fantastic to be true. Technology has improved over time, but I don't think knowledge really has, we learn new things and "debunk" others. Some subjects may even come back as common knowledge or belief. Serious study in topics now considered wrong or fake could be revived in the future and seen as fact. But this is all speculation, we could have the same knowledge in 200 years as we have now for all I know.

Having a really open mind means being prepared to be "incorrect".

[J T]

I was reading an article today about how red dwarfs are more likely to be orbited by habitable planets than are stars like our sun. I find the scientific search for extraterrestrial life to be fascinating, but I highly doubt that the first extraterrestrial we find will look anything like the little green men of science fiction, which I think many will find that to be profoundly disappointing. It got me thinking though about how some people seem to completely lose interest in things as soon as there is a scientific explanation. If you told any random kid from the 80s that one day he would be able to walk and talk to his friends from anywhere and play games, watch television, read books, and listen to music from anywhere and he could have unlimited access to many of these things, then I think that kid's mind would be utterly blown. But cellphones do that now, and it seems like we quickly learned to just take this all for granted. There is no wonder in it, but people still maintain interest in telepathy and projection as mythical abilities, though they essentially do the same things as the scientifically understandable technological solution. There are people that dream of flying that have no interest in airplanes. People that want to travel through space, but couldn't care less about NASA. There are people that wish they could travel through time, but fall asleep at the very mention of Einstein's theory of relativity. Why do so many people prefer a fantastical explanation to a scientific one? Why do people lose interest in amazing things once they can be understood? I find science and technology to be endlessly fascinating, so this whole preference for the mystical doesn't make sense to me and I actually find it to be rather annoying, honestly. It all makes me think of Tim Minchin's Storm.

[Gunstar Green]

It got me thinking though about how some people seem to completely lose interest in things as soon as there is a scientific explanation.

I notice this as well and it confuses me. I spend a lot of time just thinking how astounding the computer screen in front of me is. My limited knowledge of astronomy makes the universe that much larger and more incredible and the more I learn the more I'm blown away. That same feeling goes for most things in any field of science and technology really.

I find that when you compare normal and paranormal that normal is already far more insane and incredible than the paranormal.

[Cronozilla]

I don't know if anyone really wants to hear my thoughts on stuff like this. I get annoyed by it when people take it to the vest. It's fun if no one is really taking it seriously and are just using it as a way to think about things differently. But too often pseudoscience turns into a way to trick people, scam them, or just spread ignorance about a topic. And then it gets very serious, and becomes an incredibly large problem.

Here's the main thoughts I have, if people are curious:

My problem with people believing in pseudosciences really lies with the fact that it adheres to no scientific methods. It's the "because I said so" belief system. How do you know there are ghosts? Because I said so.

Science is the idea that you take some observation; you apply an argument for what you think that behavior means, and then you test against it. Meaning, you don't find cases where it works, you find cases where it doesn't! You try to break your idea. Why? Because if you can't break it, it's likely much more correct.

Pseudosciences don't do this. They list all the reasons why it's "true", and write logical-misnomers to explain away criticisms of the idea. It's, in general, nonsense.

I don't generally have a problem with people thinking, you know, there's ghosts, or aliens, or whatever. It's the argument of saying, no I KNOW there are because of X, Y, and Z, where X, Y, and Z are very subjective observations that have no backing what-so-ever. And then that person purports that this is the absolute truth, because they said it happened.

Pseudoscience allows you to claim whatever you want, because the rules constantly change. And it's usually used to scam people. As a result, I'm not generally a fan when people take it seriously. It can be fun and interesting ... but people who genuinely belief in this stuff also begin rejecting proven methods and ideas and it just sets us back as a society.

If pseudosciences had concrete explanations, it would a field of science.

We didn't land on the moon because some guy went on Fox prime-time and said we didn't and pointed out photographic artifacts in pictures and talked about celestial mechanics from a very uneducated perspective. People believe it because it was on Fox and his arguments sounded somewhat plausible based on what he was showing. However, if you actually analyze what he's saying and what he's saying it about (or you listen to someone who knows about such things who has) you'll see the guy doesn't know what he's talking about, he obviously has no grasp on the physics in play in those situations. He goes on to purport a narrative, which is very almost as outlandish as the Flat-Earth-Society and 9/11 Conspiracies.

It's stuff like that, when people start taking it seriously, because someone spouting it appears to be a person of authority, that really pisses me off. It's the reason why people don't listen when there are problems in society, because someone else is giving them answers they want to hear and reasons to ignore what actually is happening. And at the root of that, is this belief in these pseudosciences.

I would also argue that Pseudosciences are the absolutely most arrogant thing people can do. From my perspective it usually plays out where in pseudoscience you're assuming that you're correct, while in science you're assuming you're wrong.

I do think trying to figure out how some of these ideas would work using actual science is much more interesting than anything people think up.

[Luke]

I'm one of those guys who loves watching National Geographic films, spending full days at museums and always tries to catch some type of Nature themed Imax movie while there... I am enamored with our planet.

To each his own, but I find new discoveries about the planet we live in to be far more interesting than the possibility of a bigfoot. There are millions of undiscovered species right under our noses that are far more interesting than Nessie.

[Anapan]

I've actually had people get mad at me for explaining the truth about their misconceptions about stuff. I even had a co-worker threaten me for "calling his dead father a liar".
Anyway, I'm a fan of The Skeptoid. Some fascinating articles painstakingly researched, and forums under each transcribed topic for rebuttals.

[ded srs]

I've actually had people get mad at me for explaining the truth about their misconceptions about stuff. I even had a co-worker threaten me for "calling his dead father a liar".

I don't know the context here, but I'll ask anyway: what's wrong with them keeping their misconceptions? Why is it necessary to "correct" them? Sure, you may not agree, but why's it matter if that's just what they believe?

[Anapan]

Because SCIENCE! Or maybe Aspergers? If it's been proven with research and not religous-like I can't help it. Stuff like Britta filters (actually do nothing and can grow bacteria if not changed out regularly). my sister in law got really angry for me explaining it. In the case of my co-worker it was an urban legend he'd been told since he was a kid - the thing about dandy long-legs being poisonous. Certainly not a response I expected for such a small thing.

[BoringSupreez]

Because SCIENCE! Or maybe Aspergers? If it's been proven with research and not religous-like I can't help it. Stuff like Britta filters (actually do nothing and can grow bacteria if not changed out regularly). my sister in law got really angry for me explaining it. In the case of my co-worker it was an urban legend he'd been told since he was a kid - the thing about dandy long-legs being poisonous. Certainly not a response I expected for such a small thing.

Some people react very strongly against being told what they've thought for years was wrong.