167 lines
9.4 KiB
Plaintext
167 lines
9.4 KiB
Plaintext
|
|
### ###
|
|
### ###
|
|
### #### ### ### ### ####
|
|
### ### ##### ### ###
|
|
### ### ### ### ###
|
|
### ### ##### ### ###
|
|
########## ### ### ##########
|
|
### ###
|
|
### ###
|
|
|
|
Underground eXperts United
|
|
|
|
Presents...
|
|
|
|
####### ## ## ####### # # ####### ####### #######
|
|
## ## ## ## ##### # ## ## ##
|
|
#### ## ## #### # # #### ## #######
|
|
## ## ## ## ##### # ## ## ##
|
|
## ## ####### ####### # # ####### ## #######
|
|
|
|
[ The Anatomy of Pseudo-Science ] [ By The GNN ]
|
|
|
|
|
|
____________________________________________________________________
|
|
____________________________________________________________________
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
THE ANATOMY OF PSEUDO-SCIENCE
|
|
by THE GNN/DualCrew-Shining/uXu
|
|
|
|
|
|
The concept 'science' bears a special quality: it is often connected with
|
|
test tubes, chemicals, microscopes, white coats, etc. When one talks about
|
|
'science' the first thing that pops into mind is physics, chemistry,
|
|
astronomy and perhaps psychology.
|
|
In this file, however, I will not refer to any of these particular
|
|
disciplines. What I will discuss is the general and uncontroversial
|
|
_scientific method_ that all these disciplines use. It is uncontroversial,
|
|
because it has no inherent value; either it can be _done_ good, or it can be
|
|
done bad. I believe this method is a reliable and true method, on the matters
|
|
it operates with. We cannot prove the existence of God with the scientific
|
|
method, but we surely can find answers to many more worldly questions.
|
|
Unfortunately, there are many dubious disciplines that claim that the use
|
|
the scientific method to prove their claims. Astrologists, ufologists, and
|
|
especially supporters of 'alternative medicine' such as zone therapists,
|
|
healers and various other wonder workers, to mention a few, all claim to be
|
|
based upon the method in question. When one examines how the scientific
|
|
method is structured and how it works, one quickly realizes that such
|
|
disciplines deserve to be called a pseudo-science.
|
|
|
|
Science is based upon certain reliable methods to extract laws, theories and
|
|
principles from hypotheses. The logical method is inductive, and in the
|
|
center of this, we will find the _experimental method_. If I believe that
|
|
occurrence X is due to the phenomenon Y, I can try to verify (prove) this by
|
|
an experiment. (Please remember that this is a general method, and it is not
|
|
concentrated to chemistry, physics etc., even though the concept 'experiment'
|
|
is often connected with those disciplines.)
|
|
The results from experiments are correct and always the same. There is no
|
|
possibility that an experiment could go 'wrong', if it is done right. If
|
|
Q turns into W when I pour some B into the mixture, I have proven that
|
|
(Q /\ B) --> W ; ('If (Q and B) then W') If it turns into A, I have proven
|
|
that the case is (Q /\ B --> A). If I had expected that Q would turn into H,
|
|
this does not mean that the answer I get is not correct. It only shows that
|
|
my _hypothesis_ was wrong, and that is another question.
|
|
If I, however, perform the same experiment twice and get different
|
|
answers, it shows that I have done something wrong. In an experiment, you
|
|
_idealize_ situations and therefore the answer must always be one and the
|
|
same, unless the situation is altered. If Q+B turns out to become E one day,
|
|
and the other day it turns out to be P, I must have done something wrong. I
|
|
could, for example, have forgotten to clean the instruments, or forgotten
|
|
some parameter that is crucial (but yet undiscovered).
|
|
|
|
Hypotheses in pseudo-science, on the other hand, cannot be proven by the
|
|
experimental method. Even in idealized situations, they get different answers
|
|
all the time. Say that someone claims that it is scientifically proved that a
|
|
particular Chinese super-mega-tea cures cancer. To convince the sceptic, they
|
|
show that a number of people actually have had cancer, consumed the tea, and
|
|
been cured. This would have counted as a proven fact, _if and only if_ all
|
|
(or a large percent) of those who had cancer and consumed the tea had
|
|
actually been cured.
|
|
But that is never the case. Often, only a minor number gets cured. Out of
|
|
a thousand people (even though those who perform pseudo-scientific
|
|
'experiments' seldom include so many people in their 'tests') perhaps two are
|
|
relived of their cancer. But as we all know, cancer may disappear out of no
|
|
apparent reason. To claim that it was the tea that was responsible for that
|
|
is to make a mistake.
|
|
In the same manner, it is possible to claim that if you every morning
|
|
flush down a glass of water in your toilet, your aching back will be cured. A
|
|
thousand people with bad backs perform this action. After two weeks, three of
|
|
them are relieved of their pain. The first conclusion we certainly would not
|
|
jump to was that it was due to the flushing. But in pseudo-science, such
|
|
conclusions are the only ones.
|
|
Pseudo-scientists could claim that the reason why the tea did not work for
|
|
all people, were because these people contained some parameter that failed to
|
|
make the tea work. But, since they are pseudo-scientists, they are not
|
|
interested in finding this parameter. This is not because they are simply
|
|
lazy, it is because finding such a parameter would probably show that it was
|
|
not the tea that 'cured' the illness, but something else. And then the tea
|
|
would not sell any more.
|
|
If you want to verify the result of an experiment in true science, it is
|
|
no problem. But the results from pseudo-scientific experiments are very
|
|
secret. Few people have access to the methods, and those who have are often
|
|
the same as those who invented them. This is not strange, because if the
|
|
'tests' of pseudo-science were open to the public, everyone would notice that
|
|
they were false. Therefore, they are never openly performed.
|
|
As an example, there are some followers of transcendental-yoga that claim
|
|
that they are able to levitate. But they have no proofs, and they refuse to
|
|
perform their flying in public. Still, many people believe them, and spend
|
|
thousands of dollars and years in their institutions because they believe
|
|
they will to learn how to fly. But no one have seen them succeed.
|
|
|
|
Pseudo-science is dangerous. Since it dresses itself in the costume of being
|
|
real science, people believe them. Pseudo-science is controversial. It is
|
|
based upon earning money and fooling people. It is not cheap to buy
|
|
alternative medicine nor participate in zone therapy. Even worse, it kills
|
|
people. Some, who would have been cured by an ordinary cure of penicillin,
|
|
could reject that treatment in favor for some more dubious cure. People with
|
|
incurable diseases spend their last money and hope on magicians who promise
|
|
to help them, but seldom can. Pseudo-science is an industry for making money.
|
|
It is not constructed for the public good.
|
|
I know that some people still refuse to accept my arguments. "Some people
|
|
are actually helped by those disciplines you refer to as pseudo-science! What
|
|
do you say to them? That they are wrong? That they are not cured at all? That
|
|
they just believe that they are cured?"
|
|
I do not believe they are not cured. But I am very certain that it was not
|
|
the particular pseudo-scientific discipline that helped them. It was
|
|
something else. Recall, if you had an aching back and flushed down a glass of
|
|
water into the toilet every day and were suddenly relieved of your pain, I
|
|
would not believe it was the flushing that did it. The reason why you believe
|
|
pseudo-science can help, is because it has dressed itself in the prestigious
|
|
costume of 'science'.
|
|
"But!" the hard-core sceptic may continue, "Even though it may have not
|
|
been the Chinese tea that helped my sick mother, but something else, the tea
|
|
might have helped her psychologically. As we all know, those who live in hope
|
|
to be cured are more easily cured. And the tea gave her such hope!"
|
|
Pseudo-science does not claim to give people hope. They claim that they
|
|
will actually _cure_ people. If, however, the tea gave hope to the mother,
|
|
fine with me. But the discipline is still pseudo-science. All sick mothers
|
|
that drink tea are not cured, and to claim that pseudo-science is 'helpful'
|
|
is to jump to too many conclusions too fast.
|
|
Disciplines that are based upon pseudo-science are not helpful. They steal
|
|
money from naive people, with the help of promises and false prophets. That
|
|
is the truth, and it can be proven with the help of the real scientific
|
|
method, if necessary.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
I wish to thank Mr. Sven-Ove Hansson and the Uppsala Society Against
|
|
Pseudo-Science for making this file possible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
|
|
The view from nowhere? Where? Here? There? Nowhere?
|
|
Yo, com to da uXu IRC channal man: #uxu (sometimes, we're there)
|
|
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
|
|
|
|
No battle is worth fighting except the last one.
|
|
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
uXu #372 Underground eXperts United 1997 uXu #372
|
|
Call RIPCO ][ -> +1-312-528-5020
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|