I'm just saying that all sciences start off as pseudoscientific initially.
This false statement is what they are disagreeing about.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
I'm just saying that all sciences start off as pseudoscientific initially.
This false statement is what they are disagreeing about.
@doctorstrange
Then demonstrate it lol. You don't understand my point. Perhaps ALL was a bit strong but I can't think of any major scientific discipline that just appeared out of nowhere without any pseudoscientific history.
I'm not playing games with anything. I'm puzzled by your statement. My guess is you are offended and I'm not sure why.
I'm serious about my point but you have demonstrated that you are have a religious zeal in your belief.
That is not scientific.
Fair enough but I'm frankly puzzled by your response. It is like I have hurt you feelings by "insulting" science which I have not.
Science is create by people who are fallible and it does not emerge as perfectly formed reasoned thought.
My statement above is very reasonable and you say that you were hyperbolic by saying "all", so we are in agreement, no?
When I say you are playing a semantics game, I'm referring to the use of pseudoscientific not really meaning that an early stage of science is like homeopathy, for example, but more just the hypothesis and idea stage where the experiments haven't been proven. I can only guess what exactly you meant. And like I said, if it turns out you truly feel that ALL sciences start out as pseudoscientific, then we can agree to disagree.
How is what I'm saying so controversial or sounding like I'm taking offense to your comments about "science"? Science is the only game in town and I don't have to be "religious" about it to correct you on something you actually agree with. You said "all" which is false, and you could have said with only one more sentence something that was true.
You are accusing me of being "mad" and "religious" for merely correcting and thereby clarifying your point. I think we are likely to agree with your modified point that some sciences in the past were at least partially pseudoscientific, but you said "all" and then doubled down with a comment that makes it seem you meant "all".
My perception? Either the introduction of a scientific discipline is sufficiently modern that it's not pseudo-scientific, or it's sufficiently old that it went through a period of less than rigorous testing and perhaps had some elements of pseudo-science to it. What does "my" perception have to do with it?
Medicine had periods of pseudo-science and still does to this day, but bullshit like homeopathy, wearing magnets in your wristband and similar aren't going to turn in to "science".
Anyway, I am not upset, didn't say anything controversial in clarifying your point and thank goodness I can type fast enough that this post only took me a few minutes.
Cheers
@doctrostrange Thanks for clarifying. It's easy to get the wrong end of the stick online. You are right whenever making an "ALL" statement it is almost always wrong. I should have been more clear about what I meant:)
Whether it is false or not is a matter of your own perception.
No, it's demonstrably false that ALL sciences start off as pseudo-scientific. This is the point we are making. There might be some "sciences" that have certain aspects that can't be considered scientific for a variety of reasons, but that doesn't mean that ALL science goes through this phase.
My guess is that you are playing games with semantics. If you are really serious about your point, then let's just agree to disagree. I'm fine with that.