Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Unilineal evolution – Before Darwin's work On the Origin of Species, some models incorporated Enlightenment ideas of social progress, and thus, according to philosopher of science Michael Ruse, were pseudoscientific by current standards, and may have been viewed as such during the 18th century, as well as into the start of the 19th century ...
Larry Laudan has suggested pseudoscience has no scientific meaning and is mostly used to describe human emotions: "If we would stand up and be counted on the side of reason, we ought to drop terms like 'pseudo-science' and 'unscientific' from our vocabulary; they are just hollow phrases which do only emotive work for us". [35]
Pseudoscience consists of statements, beliefs, or practices that claim to be both scientific and factual but are incompatible with the scientific method. [Note 1] Pseudoscience is often characterized by contradictory, exaggerated or unfalsifiable claims; reliance on confirmation bias rather than rigorous attempts at refutation; lack of openness to evaluation by other experts; absence of ...
Pseudoscience is a broad group of theories or assertions about the natural world that claim or appear to be scientific, but that are not accepted as scientific by the scientific community. Pseudoscience does not include most obsolete scientific or medical theories (see Category:Obsolete scientific theories ), nor does it include every idea that ...
Pseudoscience rejects empirical methodology. [1] Other conditions may be rejected or contested by orthodox medicine, but are not necessarily associated with pseudoscience. Diagnostic criteria for some of these conditions may be vague, over-inclusive, or otherwise ill-defined.
It's verifiable that the source labels them as pseudoscience; we shouldn't have to go in and try to double-check the truth of it (even if it is checking to make sure it fits the definition). And even if the book doesn't mention cases of them being presented as science, we don't know that they didn't check and find these before publishing the book.
List of topics characterized as pseudoscience Support: Eldereft, Fyslee, Landed_little_marsdon, Hgilbert, QuackGuru, 2 Crohnie, Snalwibma, Verbal 2 Oppose: Levine2112, MaxPont, Tony_Sidaway. 6+2 / 3 I would like to interpret this as a consensus to rename the article to List of topics characterized as pseudoscience (or something
That wording parallels the Arbcom description from group three: "but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience" (emphasis added). Therefore we include items covered in the first three groups below, but not the fourth. In this list, we refuse to decide whether an item is or is not an "obvious" pseudoscience (although most of them are ). Four ...