A good definition of 'science' is simply knowledge obtained via observation. Then 'pseudoscience' is the 'knowledge' that is claimed to be science but which actualy is not. The problem is that what constitute 'enough evidence' is actually subjective. To some pple, the school teaching and the satelite photograph of earth is not enough evidence that the earth is round. So to them, 'round earth theory' is pseudoscience!

A good attitude of a scientist or any other 'truth seeker' should not lead him to ridicul an idea that might be true after all. Yet 'pseudoscience' label is just that by nature! In the bible, it was stated that 'the earth is hanged upon nothing' during a time when no one could prove it! But if we booted the 'round earth hypothesis' in the 'pseudoscience' folder just because someone claimed it as fact but he could not prove it, then any attempt to verify it would not be respectable and this would retard knowledge.

Views: 33

Comment

You need to be a member of The City of Shamballa - Reiki Attunement Social Network to add comments!

Join The City of Shamballa - Reiki Attunement Social Network

Comment by Rahma on September 11, 2019 at 5:45am

The crucial question is that is the person investigating reiki, telepathy etc now a 'pseudoscientist' just because he is studying a field labled 'pseudoscience' because other pple, other than the investigator, once claimed that reiki etc is a science fact without evidence? Do my claim that 'dark matter is a science fact' without spitting out evidence, make the scientists persuing it in CERN 'pseudoscientists'. The question is whose claim is enough to send a field under 'pseudoscience' folder? Is it relevant?? Up until they answer these questions, all they have is yet another nail io vacuum!

The thing is that exoplanets did not cease to exist just because some pple claimed that they exist without offering evidence. In other words, there being what could, according to definition, validly throw 'exoplanets' into 'pseudoscience' basket does not make the investigation of exoplanets unwaranted. Ergo, the lable is far less meaningfull than they would want to beleive!

Comment by Rahma on September 11, 2019 at 5:28am

This bring me to the realy crucial issue. By definition, 'pseudoscience' involve claims. And this lead to the crucial question: whose claim sends a field under 'pseudoscience' folder? I can make the false claim that dark matter, string theory, suppersymetry etc are 'proven facts'. Does this make these subjects 'pseudoscience'? This is a crucial quertion science once a field is smeard with 'pseudoscience' stain, respectable scientists tend to avoid persuing it. The point is that it is so even if it might be true after all!

So the question of who is claiming/or beleiving that a certain field is 'proven science' is crucial and yet it is never mentione when a field is being branded as 'pseudoscience'! The question is that does a statement become false just because some pple beleive/claim it to be fact without evidence? This is what the 'pseudoudoscience' branders seems to insinuate!

Some pple might beleive that reiki, telepathy etc is proven science. Someone else might still want to investigate.

Follow On:

Translate this Site:

Have you?

Become a Member
Invited Your Friends
Made new Friends
Read/ Written a Blog
Joined/ Created a Group
Read/ Posted a Discussion
Looked at/Posted Photos
Looked at/Posted Videos
Made a donation this month
Followed us on Twitter
 Liked us on Facebook

Donate

Donate here (in any amount) if you benefited from attunements or healing or simply want to make a donation to keep the City of Shamballa network running. All donations are greatly appreciated.

Donate

© 2009-2019   Chris Comish d/b/a The City of Shamballa Social Network   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Service