2 edits
Originally posted by @eladarexcluding those said 'sciences' already considered by most scientists to be pseudoscience. NONE.
As for the pseudoscience, how much of today's science will be considered pseudoscience a hundred years from now?
I challenge you to state some said 'sciences' considered by most scientists to be real science which could credibly become considered by most scientists to be pseudoscience a hundred years from now...
What would you put on your 'list'?
Physics?
Biology?
Chemistry?
...
or what?
Originally posted by @eladarWhat aspects of today's science do you think might be considered pseudoscience a hundred years from now?
Are you really that dense or is it that you have some ideological belief that blinds you?
As for the pseudoscience, how much of today's science will be considered pseudoscience a hundred years from now?
Originally posted by @kazetnagorraPhrenology.
What aspects of today's science do you think might be considered pseudoscience a hundred years from now?
Originally posted by @humyDo you think that the people of that time would believe their science to be pseudoscience?
excluding those said 'sciences' already considered by most scientists to be pseudoscience. NONE.
I challenge you to state some said 'sciences' considered by most scientists to be real science which could credibly become considered by most scientists to be pseudoscience a hundred years from now...
What would you put on your 'list'?
Physics?
Biology?
Chemistry?
...
or what?
1 edit
Originally posted by @kazetnagorraSorry, I don't have a time machine.
What aspects of today's science do you think might be considered pseudoscience a hundred years from now?
Perhaps string theory? Perhaps evolution as the explanation for life.
Perhaps the idea that homosexuality is genetic.
Perhaps the idea that you can surgically change your gender.
Possibly the idea of man made glibal warming.
Originally posted by @eladarThere has been a lot of ideas that eventually proved wrong. Phlogiston theory. Steady State theory. And many more. But science came up with other theories that better explained those old theories. But they are not considered pseudoscience only because they now are being outdated.
Do you think that the people of that time would believe their science to be pseudoscience?
Then there are astrology, numerology, homeopathie, and such, that has never been a part of science but yet are religiously believed in, even today. They call themselves scientists but is rejected by real scientists. That's pseudo-science. They never call themselves pseudo scientists.
Newton was never a pseudo scientist. He was right in the fields he worked in. Einstein made a move further and continued the newtonian theories to the theories of relativity.
Big Bang theory is by no means complete. But it is a good start. Perhaps in the future we know what triggered BigBang at t=0, that today's theory doesn't say anything about. The future will never call BigBang pseudo science.
Perhaps there are more to know about gravitation that gives us anti-gravity vehicles, faster than light velocities, and communication through gravitons, . We don't know, yet. But when we do, we will never call the 21st century as the era of pseudo science, no way.
Originally posted by @eladarOr that physics could be completely altered on one day and one day only: Tuesday September 11, 2001.
Sorry, I don't have a time machine.
Perhaps string theory? Perhaps evolution as the explanation for life.
Perhaps the idea that homosexuality is genetic.
Perhaps the idea that you can surgically change your gender.
Possibly the idea of man made glibal warming.
On that extra-special day, a handful of today’s scientists insist:
• Jet fuel can melt steel beams
• Small office fires can cause a 47-story steel building to free-fall into its own footprint
• Fire can cause the dustification of two nearly 1,400’ tall steel buildings
• Two 1,400’ tall steel buildings can be reduced to a pile of rubble less than 30’ tall
• An airplane can smash into the ground with such impact that it completely disappears into the dirt
• Despite smashing into the dirt with such force as to leave no discernable trace, an airplane can at the same time leave a debris field spanning eight miles wide
• All 85 cameras surrounding the Pentagon can simultaneously stop working, leaving us with only one indistinct image of something streaking toward the structure
• Anyone who disagrees with their findings is a conspiracy theorist and is not to be trusted
Science is fun!
Originally posted by @fabianfnasNewton was never a pseudo scientist. He was right in the fields he worked in.
There has been a lot of ideas that eventually proved wrong. Phlogiston theory. Steady State theory. And many more. But science came up with other theories that better explained those old theories. But they are not considered pseudoscience only because they now are being outdated.
Then there are astrology, numerology, homeopathie, and such, that has ne ...[text shortened]... , yet. But when we do, we will never call the 21st century as the era of pseudo science, no way.
Two such fields: alchemy and the occult.
Feel free to expand on how right he was in these fields of science, please.
4 edits
Originally posted by @eladar
Sorry, I don't have a time machine.
Perhaps string theory? Perhaps evolution as the explanation for life.
Perhaps the idea that homosexuality is genetic.
Perhaps the idea that you can surgically change your gender.
Possibly the idea of man made glibal warming.
Perhaps string theory?
You are confusing an unproven theory, which therefore may be wrong, with pseudoscience. And you are confusing a disproved theory with pseudoscience.
String theory may be one day proven wrong but that doesn't mean it was ever pseudoscience and it will never be regarded as pseudoscience even if proven wrong because what is defined as pseudoscience is NOT scientific theories proven wrong but rather something based on theories that were UNscientific in the first place.
disproved-scientific-theory ≠ pseudoscience
based-on-theory-formulated-using-methods-AGAINST-valid-scientific-principles = pseudoscience
BIG DIFFERENCE!
Perhaps evolution as the explanation for life.
No, evolution theory will never be regarded as wrong (let alone pseudoscience) because it is proven.
But even if, miraculously and extremely hypothetically and despite all the current MOUNTAIN of evidence in favor of it, it WILL be proven wrong. it STILL wouldn't be regarded as pseudoscience because it would be an historical fact that it was validly EVIDENCE-based and therefore a SCIENTIFIC theory that was proven wrong.
And even if, extremely hypothetically, it WERE to be proven wrong, then analyzing why it is wrong will point the way to the formulation of an EVEN BETTER scientific theory to explain the origin of species; that is just how science works.
Perhaps the idea that homosexuality is genetic.
Again; you confuse theory that may be wrong with pseudoscience.
Perhaps the idea that you can surgically change your gender.
That isn't even a scientific theory let alone a science.
Possibly the idea of man made global warming. (spelling corrected)
Again, no, that will never be regarded as wrong (let alone pseudoscience) because it is proven.
And again, even if, miraculously and extremely hypothetically and despite all the current evidence in favor of it, it WILL be proven wrong. it STILL wouldn't be regarded as pseudoscience because it would be an historical fact that it was validly EVIDENCE-based and therefore a SCIENTIFIC theory that was proven wrong.
You are wrong on all accounts.
Originally posted by @eladarIs that a moral good?
When it comes to evolution it is only natural that humans becoming a stronger, smarter and disease resistant race would be good.
Originally posted by @humyDo you truly believe that practitioners of what is commonly now known as pseudoscience couldn't have offered an equally uncompelling list of reasons why their pet areas weren't pseudoscience?Perhaps string theory?
You are confusing an unproven theory, which therefore may be wrong, with pseudoscience. And you are confusing a disproved theory with pseudoscience.
String theory may be one day proven wrong but that doesn't mean it was ever pseudoscience and it will never be regarded as pseudoscience even if proven wrong because ...[text shortened]... based and therefore a SCIENTIFIC theory that was proven wrong.
You are wrong on all accounts.
They didn't even see it coming...
Originally posted by @eladarOf your list, the only thing that's actually part of current scientific consensus is the existence of man-made climate change. The evidence in favour is vast, as you well know, so it would be quite surprising if it would be thought of as "pseudoscience" in the future.
Sorry, I don't have a time machine.
Perhaps string theory? Perhaps evolution as the explanation for life.
Perhaps the idea that homosexuality is genetic.
Perhaps the idea that you can surgically change your gender.
Possibly the idea of man made glibal warming.
Originally posted by @kazetnagorraDo you think the practitioners of pseudoscience of the past would believe their practice would one day be considered pseudoscience?
Of your list, the only thing that's actually part of current scientific consensus is the existence of man-made climate change. The evidence in favour is vast, as you well know, so it would be quite surprising if it would be thought of as "pseudoscience" in the future.