The scientific method, developed over hundreds of years, has brought the world untold knowledge and has improved all of our lives. According to this procedure, scientific discoveries must be testable, reproducible, and open to criticism. But this method is often misunderstood- some people think that if a scientist doesn't dogmatically believe in their own findings, why should anyone else? That's how pseudoscience gets hold, as those who push a certain unprovable theory do it with fervor and unquestioned belief. Add in our news media that tends to blow up the smallest discoveries into something exciting, and you have all manner of misinformation. That's why science should be taught in schools, and not just scientific facts, but the manner in which those discoveries are made and then built upon each other. (via Geeks Are Sexy)
Wednesday, August 09, 2023
Science vs. Pseudoscience
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I think Michael Creighton said it best: Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.
So "climate science" is pseudoscience.
Post a Comment