From: throopw@sheol.UUCP (Wayne Throop)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Science & Pseudoscience
Summary: the line between science and pseudoscience is very fuzzy
Date: 22 Jan 93 02:30:20 GMT

: From: onar@hsr.no (Onar Aam)
: Message-ID: <1993Jan19.162346.17045@hsr.no>
: All major changes in science seem to come into three categories:
: 1) the old model is a subset of the new model 
:    (relativity vs Newtonian mech.)
: 2) a general principle replaces an ad hoc theory. 
:    (linear models of turbulence)
: 3) one model wins in competition with contemporary models. 
:    (theory of oxidation)
: When a new scientific model completely discards the older model then it
: seems to be because the older model is based on pseudoscience. 

Not a bad summary.  But I don't think case (1) isn't as simple as it
appears.  Take the example of relativity vs Newtonian mechanics.  True,
the numerical answers gotten by the former approach those gotten by the
latter as velocity and mass approach zero.  But I contend calling this
property of the two theories "subset"ness is a little misleading. 

For example, Newtonian gravity involved euclidean spacetimes and
a "force" of gravity.  Relativistic gravitation (in GR) completely
does away with the notion of "force" in the Newtonian sense.  It
isn't just a refinement or improvement of the notion of force,
it fundamentally throws that notion away and replaces it with
noneuclidean geometric effects.

Further, the notion of the "vital fluid", which Onar seems to find
pseudoscientific seems to me to be quite akin to phlogiston, the
luminiferous ether, or even the elements of earth, air, fire and water
(and whatever the perfect celestial element was called, which I
can't call to mind just now) of old Greek philosophy.

None of these notions seem to me to be pseudoscientific.  However,
the notions of Orgone energy, crystal powers, channeling, numerology,
maybe even N-rays and the like, all seem pseudoscience to me.

The difference I see is that the notions of phlogiston, vital fluid,
and the greek elements were all given up when the predictions they
made didn't pan out.  Astrology, Orgone energy, numerology, and so on
were retained, despite quite strong counterevidence and numerous
failed predictions.

There are borderline cases, of course.  Ranging perhaps through bodily
humors, through Freudianism, through spontaneous human combustion, 
to hypnotism. 

( Mental excersize:  which way is the above list of "borderline"
  cases going: from pseudoscience to science or the reverse?  And why? )

And perhaps most odd, this leads to the notion that a particular
theory can be scientific at one time, and pseudoscientific at
some later time.  And the above "mental excersize" is rendered
difficult by the fact that perhaps there is no linear scale leading
from one to the other classification.  But that's science for you.

: [..the vital fluid..] theory broke down, I think, when Urea was
: synthetically generated in the laboratory.

Has Newtonian gravity been pseudoscientific ever since the measurements
of the displacement of stellar images by the mass of the sun? What about
the change from bodily humors to the circulatory system.  (I ask not to
be flip, but because it seems an interesting grey area for further
thought...)
--
Wayne Throop  ...!mcnc!dg-rtp!sheol!throopw
Newsgroups: talk.origins