Pseudoscience - Revision history

EsoTypo: otherlang +fr

2013-04-27T21:46:16Z

otherlang +fr

Halbmond: /* Overview */

2013-03-09T16:18:18Z

Overview

Heimdall: OtherLang DE

2011-03-10T22:21:59Z

OtherLang DE

Halbmond: adjustment of versions

2011-03-09T15:51:29Z

adjustment of versions

Halbmond: typos etc.

2011-03-09T14:02:01Z

typos etc.

Heimdall: /* Overview */

2011-02-26T13:07:35Z

Overview

Heimdall: Improved Weblinks

2011-02-26T10:49:40Z

Improved Weblinks

Heimdall: Alignment Englisch/German

2011-02-26T10:43:06Z

Alignment Englisch/German

Show changes

Heimdall: Alignment Englisch/German

2011-02-26T00:17:28Z

Alignment Englisch/German

Heimdall: Fixed comment

2011-02-25T13:22:30Z

Fixed comment

@@ Line 36: / Line 36: @@
 *''In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded. The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved. He asserts that the claimant has not borne the burden of proof and that science must continue to build its cognitive map of reality without incorporating the extraordinary claim as a new "fact." Since the true skeptic does not assert a claim, he has no burden to prove anything. He just goes on using the established theories of "conventional science" as usual. But if a critic asserts that there is evidence for disproof, that he has a negative hypothesis --saying, for instance, that a seeming psi result was actually due to an artifact--he is making a claim and therefore also has to bear a burden of proof [...]''<ref>Marcello Truzzi, On Pseudo-Skepticism</ref>
-{{OtherLang|ge=Pseudowissenschaft|en=Pseudoscience}}
+{{OtherLang|ge=Pseudowissenschaft|en=Pseudoscience|fr=Pseudo-science}}
 ==Literatur==

@@ Line 9: / Line 9: @@
 The construct of a particular pseudoscience often bases on one person whose authority must not be doubted. The original statements of its initiator will be presented in dogmatic ways, and both theoretic approaches of explanation and possible series of experiments will always be interpreted in accordance with the original dogma.
-Pseudoscience often uses "experiments" and takes random data from the statistical noise which support fake desired effects by handy selection and manipulation.<ref>http://www.xy44.de/belladonna/ Gerhard Bruhn, Erhard Wielandt, Klaus Keck: Pseudowissenschaften an der Universität Leipzig</ref> Often an "[[Inverted Occam's Razor]]" will be applied: Complex or absurd theories are preferred over approaches with an economoical application of hypotheses. One of the characteristics of pseudoscience is that it does not recognize any method of detecting mistakes of its studies or conclusions, let alone correct them in the first place.
+Pseudoscience often uses "experiments" and takes random data from the statistical noise which support fake desired effects by handy selection and manipulation.<ref>http://www.xy44.de/belladonna/ Gerhard Bruhn, Erhard Wielandt, Klaus Keck: Pseudowissenschaften an der Universität Leipzig</ref> Often an "[[Inverted Occam's Razor]]" will be applied: Complex or absurd theories are preferred over approaches with an economical application of hypotheses. One of the characteristics of pseudoscience is that it does not recognize any method of detecting mistakes of its studies or conclusions, let alone correct them in the first place.
-Many esoterics often look for a substitute of or complement to science and thus eventually appear to be fighting science.
+Many esoterics tend to look for a substitute of or complement to science and thus eventually appear to be fighting science.
 ==Typical Characteristics==

@@ Line 35: / Line 35: @@
 ==Quotes==
 *''In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded. The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved. He asserts that the claimant has not borne the burden of proof and that science must continue to build its cognitive map of reality without incorporating the extraordinary claim as a new "fact." Since the true skeptic does not assert a claim, he has no burden to prove anything. He just goes on using the established theories of "conventional science" as usual. But if a critic asserts that there is evidence for disproof, that he has a negative hypothesis --saying, for instance, that a seeming psi result was actually due to an artifact--he is making a claim and therefore also has to bear a burden of proof [...]''<ref>Marcello Truzzi, On Pseudo-Skepticism</ref>
 ==Literatur==
@@ Line 103: / Line 105: @@
 * http://www.wort-und-wissen.de/index2.php?artikel=sij/sij72/sij72-3.html (German)
 * http://members.fortunecity.com/lange42/pseudo.htm (German)
 ==Quellennachweise==
 <references/>
 [[category:Pseudoscience]]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 [[image:pseudoscience2.jpg|400px|thumb]]
-'''Pseudoscience''' are theories, beliefs, and claims which are presented as scientific but do not adhere to the strict standards of science. They are usually not supported by evidence, not sufficiently tested, or even implausible. Scientific terms are often misused or used in a confusing way to resemble real science. Pseudoscientific claims are often not falsifiable and expressed in unclear terms, with the intent to render them difficult to disprove.
+'''Pseudoscience''' are theories, beliefs, and claims which are given a semblance to science but do not adhere to the strict standards of science. Pseudosciene will more often than not immunise itself against falsification by applying terms they do not properly define and by refusing to commit themselves to falsifiable predictions.
 The term "pseudoscience" has been in use since the 18th century and one of the first recorded uses of the word "pseudo-science" was in 1844 in the Northern Journal of Medicine, I 387: "That opposite kind of innovation which pronounces what has been recognized as a branch of science, to have been a pseudo-science, composed merely of so-called facts, connected together by misapprehensions under the disguise of principles". The current definition is more or less based on the works of Thomas Huxley and Karl Popper. Popper proposed falsifiability as an important criterion in distinguishing science from pseudoscience<ref>[http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/S&PS.html T. H. Huxley: Science and Pseudo-Science]</ref><ref>„Incidentally, the philosopher Karl Popper coined the term, ‘pseudo-science’. The examples he gave were (Western) astrology and homeopathy, the medical system developed in Germany.“ V. V. S. Sarma: Natural calamities and pseudoscientific menace. Current Science 90:2 (25. Januar 2006); „The notion of pseudoscience, as coined by philosopher Karl Popper is discussed in the context of its application to library science and its implications for selection.“ Graham Howard: Pseudo Science and Selection. Collection Management 29:2 (24. Mai 2005)</ref>
 ==Overview==
-There are several criteria which distinguish science from pseudoscience. Basically, if a scientific claim does not meet scientific norms it may be classified as pseudoscience. Distinguishing between bad or deceptive research in science and pseudoscience is often difficult. One difference is that pseudoscientific claims are often in conflict with empiric scientific knowledge and created specifically to support a certain model of thinking, while fraudulent science tries to fit its "results" into current scientific theories. Scientific jokes and fraud in science are not considered as pesudoscience.
+There is a multitude of criteria which distinguish science from pseudoscience. Generally speaking any aberrance from the basis of scientific approach may be an indication of pseudoscience. Distinguishing between bad or deceptive research within science on the one hand and pseudoscience on the other, however, may often  be problematic. Pseudoscience is most often characterized by being especially designed to support a certain prefabricated construct of ideas. Furthermore, pseudoscientific results will be in contradiction of empiric scientific theories, while cases of fraud within established science will predominantly attempt to incorporate "results" into existing theories. Scientific jokes and fraud may not be considered as pseudoscience.
-Pseudoscientific claims are usually created by single persons whose authority must not be doubted. The claims of the creator are to be seen as a dogma and pleaded as such. Experiments and theoretical approaches to explain a phenomenon are always explained or reinterpreted to support the dogma.
+The construct of a particular pseudoscience often bases on one person whose authority must not be doubted. The original statements of its initiator will be presented in dogmatic ways, and both theoretic approaches of explanation and possible series of experiments will always be interpreted in accordance with the original dogma.
-Pseudoscientists often use "experiments" to prove their claims, but manipulate either selection or results to "prove" the alleged validity of their claims.<ref>http://www.xy44.de/belladonna/ Gerhard Bruhn, Erhard Wielandt, Klaus Keck: Pseudowissenschaften an der Universität Leipzig</ref> Often an "[[Inverted Occam's Razor]]" will be applied: A complex and/or absurd theorie is preferred over a simple explanation. Also, pseudoscience never changes and updates its views when new evidence is found. If it can be fitted into the theory, this evidence is embraced and used. If it does not fit, evidence is ignored, dismissed, or claimed to be bogus.
+Pseudoscience often uses "experiments" and takes random data from the statistical noise which support fake desired effects by handy selection and manipulation.<ref>http://www.xy44.de/belladonna/ Gerhard Bruhn, Erhard Wielandt, Klaus Keck: Pseudowissenschaften an der Universität Leipzig</ref> Often an "[[Inverted Occam's Razor]]" will be applied: Complex or absurd theories are preferred over approaches with an economoical application of hypotheses. One of the characteristics of pseudoscience is that it does not recognize any method of detecting mistakes of its studies or conclusions, let alone correct them in the first place.
-Esoterics often look for an extension or improvement of science and end up as enemies of science.
+Many esoterics often look for a substitute of or complement to science and thus eventually appear to be fighting science.
 ==Typical Characteristics==
-* Claims are not supported by evidence. These claims will often be in conflict with current experimental data or mathematical theories, and sometimes even contradict common sense.
+* Claims which will not be substantiated by experiment or are not deductible mathmatically: Often, such claims will be in contradiction to experiments, mathmatic theories, and very often also to so-called common sense.
-* Based on sources which cannot be validated
+* will quote sources which cannot be reproduced and therefore cannot be validated
-* Based on experiments which cannot be reproduced (or yield different results)
+* will be based on experiments which cannot be reproduced (or yield different results)
-* Contradictory [[Occam's Razor]]
+* will be contradictory to [[Occam's Razor]]
-* Systematically ignore evidence or only select convenient evidence
+* will systematically suppress evidence or select evidence and observations particularly convenient.
 ==The seven sins of pseudoscience==
 Several science theoreticians have compiled lists of the sins distinguishing pseudoscience from real science. This includes lists by Langmuir ([1953] 1989), Gruenberger (1964), Dutch (1982), Bunge (1982), Radner and Radner (1982), Kitcher (1982, 30–54), Hansson (1983), Grove (1985), Thagard (1988), Glymour and Stalker (1990), Derkson (1993, 2001), Vollmer (1993), Ruse (1996, 300–306) and Mahner (2007)<ref>[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pseudo-science/ Science and Pseudo-Science], Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy</ref><ref>Deerksen A.A: ''The seven sins of pseudo-science'', Journal for General Philosophy of Science, Volume 24, Number 1 / März 1993</ref>. These are usually:
-#Belief in authority: It is contended that some person or persons have a special ability to determine what is true or false. Others must accept their judgments.
+#Belief in authority: It is contended that some person or persons have a superior comprehension and thus their statement is to be accepted.
-#Nonrepeatable experiments: Reliance is put on experiments that cannot be repeated by others with the same result.
+#Irreproducible experiments: Reliance is put on experiments which cannot be repeated by others with the same result.
 #Handpicked examples: Handpicked examples are used although they are not representative of the general category the investigation refers to.
 #Unwillingness to test: A theory is not tested although it is possible to test it.
-#Disregard of refuting information: Observations or experiments in conflict with a theory are neglected.
+#Unfounded immunisation: critical arguments will be dismissed, while arguments supporting one's own conceptions will be cultivated systematically.
-#Built-in subterfuge: Testing of a theory is arranged in such ways that results will always confirm the theory, and never disprove it.
+#Embedded deception: Testing of a theory is arranged in such ways that a theory may only be confirmed by results, but never falsified.
-#Explanations are abandoned without replacement. Tenable explanations are given up without being replaced, so that the new theory leaves much more unexplained than the previous one. (Hansson 1983)
+#Explanations are removed without replacement. Tenable explanations are eliminated so that the new theory explains less than the previous one. (Hansson 1983)
 <!-- Skipped parascience, seems to be even less used in english than in german -->

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 [[image:pseudoscience2.jpg|400px|thumb]]
-'''Pseudoscience''' are theories, beliefs and claims which are presented as scientific but do not adhere to the strict standards of science. They are usually not supported by evidence, not sufficiently tested or even implausible. Scientific terms are often misused or used in a confusing way to resemble real science. Pseudoscientific claims are often not falsifiable and expressed in unclear terms, with the intend to make them difficult to disprove.
+'''Pseudoscience''' are theories, beliefs, and claims which are presented as scientific but do not adhere to the strict standards of science. They are usually not supported by evidence, not sufficiently tested, or even implausible. Scientific terms are often misused or used in a confusing way to resemble real science. Pseudoscientific claims are often not falsifiable and expressed in unclear terms, with the intent to render them difficult to disprove.
 The term "pseudoscience" has been in use since the 18th century and one of the first recorded uses of the word "pseudo-science" was in 1844 in the Northern Journal of Medicine, I 387: "That opposite kind of innovation which pronounces what has been recognized as a branch of science, to have been a pseudo-science, composed merely of so-called facts, connected together by misapprehensions under the disguise of principles". The current definition is more or less based on the works of Thomas Huxley and Karl Popper. Popper proposed falsifiability as an important criterion in distinguishing science from pseudoscience<ref>[http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/S&PS.html T. H. Huxley: Science and Pseudo-Science]</ref><ref>„Incidentally, the philosopher Karl Popper coined the term, ‘pseudo-science’. The examples he gave were (Western) astrology and homeopathy, the medical system developed in Germany.“ V. V. S. Sarma: Natural calamities and pseudoscientific menace. Current Science 90:2 (25. Januar 2006); „The notion of pseudoscience, as coined by philosopher Karl Popper is discussed in the context of its application to library science and its implications for selection.“ Graham Howard: Pseudo Science and Selection. Collection Management 29:2 (24. Mai 2005)</ref>
 ==Overview==
-There are several criteria that distinguish science and pseudoscience. Basically, if a scientific claim does not meet scientific norms it can be classified as pseudoscience. To distinguish between bad or deceptive research in science and pseudoscience is often difficult. One difference is that pseudoscientific claims are often in conflict with empiric scientific knowledge and created specifically to support some model of thinking, while fraudulent science tries to fit its "results" into current scientific theories. Scientific jokes and fraud in science are not considered to be pesudoscience.
+There are several criteria which distinguish science from pseudoscience. Basically, if a scientific claim does not meet scientific norms it may be classified as pseudoscience. Distinguishing between bad or deceptive research in science and pseudoscience is often difficult. One difference is that pseudoscientific claims are often in conflict with empiric scientific knowledge and created specifically to support a certain model of thinking, while fraudulent science tries to fit its "results" into current scientific theories. Scientific jokes and fraud in science are not considered as pesudoscience.
-Pseudoscientific claims are usually created by single persons, whose authority must not be doubted. The claims of the creator are a dogma and pleaded as such. Experiments and theoretical approaches to explain a phenomenon are always explained or reinterpreted to support the dogma.
+Pseudoscientific claims are usually created by single persons whose authority must not be doubted. The claims of the creator are to be seen as a dogma and pleaded as such. Experiments and theoretical approaches to explain a phenomenon are always explained or reinterpreted to support the dogma.
-Pseudoscientists often use "experiments" to prove their claims, but manipulate the selection or the results to "show" that their claims are valid.<ref>http://www.xy44.de/belladonna/ Gerhard Bruhn, Erhard Wielandt, Klaus Keck: Pseudowissenschaften an der Universität Leipzig</ref> Often an "[[Inverted Occam's Razor]]" comes to play: A complex and/or absurd theorie is preferred to a simple explanation. Also, pseudoscience never changes and updates its views when new evidence is found. If it can be fitted into the theory, the evidence is embraced and used. If it does not fit, evidence is ignored, dismissed or claimed to be bogus.
+Pseudoscientists often use "experiments" to prove their claims, but manipulate either selection or results to "prove" the alleged validity of their claims.<ref>http://www.xy44.de/belladonna/ Gerhard Bruhn, Erhard Wielandt, Klaus Keck: Pseudowissenschaften an der Universität Leipzig</ref> Often an "[[Inverted Occam's Razor]]" will be applied: A complex and/or absurd theorie is preferred over a simple explanation. Also, pseudoscience never changes and updates its views when new evidence is found. If it can be fitted into the theory, this evidence is embraced and used. If it does not fit, evidence is ignored, dismissed, or claimed to be bogus.
-Esoterics often look vor a extension or improvement of science and end up as enemys of science.
+Esoterics often look for an extension or improvement of science and end up as enemies of science.
 ==Typical Characteristics==
-* Claims that are not supported by evidence. These claims often stand in conflict with current experimental data or to mathematical theories and sometimes even contradict common sense.
+* Claims are not supported by evidence. These claims will often be in conflict with current experimental data or mathematical theories, and sometimes even contradict common sense.
-* Based on sources that cannot be validated
+* Based on sources which cannot be validated
-* Based on experiments that cannot be reproduced (or if, lead to different results)
+* Based on experiments which cannot be reproduced (or yield different results)
-* Contradicting [[Occam's Razor]]
+* Contradictory [[Occam's Razor]]
-* Systematically ignore evidence or only select fitting evidence
+* Systematically ignore evidence or only select convenient evidence
 ==The seven sins of pseudoscience==
-Several science theoreticians have compiled lists of the sins that distinguish pseudoscience from real science. This includes lists by Langmuir ([1953] 1989), Gruenberger (1964), Dutch (1982), Bunge (1982), Radner and Radner (1982), Kitcher (1982, 30–54), Hansson (1983), Grove (1985), Thagard (1988), Glymour and Stalker (1990), Derkson (1993, 2001), Vollmer (1993), Ruse (1996, 300–306) and Mahner (2007)<ref>[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pseudo-science/ Science and Pseudo-Science], Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy</ref><ref>Deerksen A.A: ''The seven sins of pseudo-science'', Journal for General Philosophy of Science, Volume 24, Number 1 / März 1993</ref>. These are usually:
+Several science theoreticians have compiled lists of the sins distinguishing pseudoscience from real science. This includes lists by Langmuir ([1953] 1989), Gruenberger (1964), Dutch (1982), Bunge (1982), Radner and Radner (1982), Kitcher (1982, 30–54), Hansson (1983), Grove (1985), Thagard (1988), Glymour and Stalker (1990), Derkson (1993, 2001), Vollmer (1993), Ruse (1996, 300–306) and Mahner (2007)<ref>[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pseudo-science/ Science and Pseudo-Science], Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy</ref><ref>Deerksen A.A: ''The seven sins of pseudo-science'', Journal for General Philosophy of Science, Volume 24, Number 1 / März 1993</ref>. These are usually:
-#Belief in authority: It is contended that some person or persons have a special ability to determine what is true or false. Others have to accept their judgments.
+#Belief in authority: It is contended that some person or persons have a special ability to determine what is true or false. Others must accept their judgments.
-#Nonrepeatable experiments: Reliance is put on experiments that cannot be repeated by others with the same outcome.
+#Nonrepeatable experiments: Reliance is put on experiments that cannot be repeated by others with the same result.
-#Handpicked examples: Handpicked examples are used although they are not representative of the general category that the investigation refers to.
+#Handpicked examples: Handpicked examples are used although they are not representative of the general category the investigation refers to.
 #Unwillingness to test: A theory is not tested although it is possible to test it.
-#Disregard of refuting information: Observations or experiments that conflict with a theory are neglected.
+#Disregard of refuting information: Observations or experiments in conflict with a theory are neglected.
-#Built-in subterfuge: The testing of a theory is so arranged that the theory can only be confirmed, never disconfirmed, by the outcome.
+#Built-in subterfuge: Testing of a theory is arranged in such ways that results will always confirm the theory, and never disprove it.
 #Explanations are abandoned without replacement. Tenable explanations are given up without being replaced, so that the new theory leaves much more unexplained than the previous one. (Hansson 1983)
 <!-- Skipped parascience, seems to be even less used in english than in german -->
-==Quotese==
+==Quotes==
 *''In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded. The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved. He asserts that the claimant has not borne the burden of proof and that science must continue to build its cognitive map of reality without incorporating the extraordinary claim as a new "fact." Since the true skeptic does not assert a claim, he has no burden to prove anything. He just goes on using the established theories of "conventional science" as usual. But if a critic asserts that there is evidence for disproof, that he has a negative hypothesis --saying, for instance, that a seeming psi result was actually due to an artifact--he is making a claim and therefore also has to bear a burden of proof [...]''<ref>Marcello Truzzi, On Pseudo-Skepticism</ref>

@@ Line 95: / Line 95: @@
 ==Weblinks==
-* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience
+* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience Wikipedia about Pseudoscience]
 * http://home.tele2.at/aloisreutterer/wissenschaft.htm  (German)
 * http://www.wort-und-wissen.de/index2.php?artikel=sij/sij72/sij72-3.html (German)
 * http://members.fortunecity.com/lange42/pseudo.htm (German)
 ==Versions of this article in other languages==

@@ Line 33: / Line 33: @@
 ==Literature==
-<!-- ToDo: Replace german literature
+<!-- ToDo: Replace german literature -->
 *G. Bakker, L. Clark: Explanation. An introduction to the philosophy of science. Mountain View (Ca.): Mayfield 1988
 *Hans-Peter Beck-Bornholdt, Hans-Hermann Dubben (1997): Der Hund, der Eier legt - Erkennen von Fehlinformationen durch Querdenken, Reinbek