Comments on: Why “pseudoscience” isn’t a bad word after all http://odinkirk.com/2007/08/23/why-pseudoscience-isnt-a-bad-word-after-all/ Wed, 07 Jul 2010 16:41:59 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: John Allison http://odinkirk.com/2007/08/23/why-pseudoscience-isnt-a-bad-word-after-all/comment-page-1/#comment-222 John Allison Sat, 01 Sep 2007 23:56:20 +0000 http://odinkirk.com/2007/08/23/why-pseudoscience-isnt-a-bad-word-after-all/#comment-222 Very true. While pseudoscience doesn't make for good communication, it is still possible to get the idea across in many cases. In my experience, just as you say, the pseudoscience just gets in the way, which is why I suggest simply trying it out and worrying about theory later. I'm also not adverse to scientific verification, where it's plausible. I just don't like it when good science is misused. My view and suggestion is to get verification when and as you can if you like, but don't rely on it when forming a practice of living. I think we're saying much the same thing. Very true. While pseudoscience doesn’t make for good communication, it is still possible to get the idea across in many cases. In my experience, just as you say, the pseudoscience just gets in the way, which is why I suggest simply trying it out and worrying about theory later.

I’m also not adverse to scientific verification, where it’s plausible. I just don’t like it when good science is misused. My view and suggestion is to get verification when and as you can if you like, but don’t rely on it when forming a practice of living. I think we’re saying much the same thing.

]]> By: Mark http://odinkirk.com/2007/08/23/why-pseudoscience-isnt-a-bad-word-after-all/comment-page-1/#comment-220 Mark Sat, 01 Sep 2007 22:17:59 +0000 http://odinkirk.com/2007/08/23/why-pseudoscience-isnt-a-bad-word-after-all/#comment-220 Right, in terms of personal utility, psuedoscientific explanations are fine. Hell, an explanation of complete fantasy is fine. That the thing works is the important part. However, if someone tries to *communicate* explanations for their experiences and beliefs, pseudoscience and other forms of fancy get in the way. The prototypical example is explaining events through God's actions. It doesn't truly explain anything. Right, in terms of personal utility, psuedoscientific explanations are fine. Hell, an explanation of complete fantasy is fine. That the thing works is the important part.

However, if someone tries to *communicate* explanations for their experiences and beliefs, pseudoscience and other forms of fancy get in the way. The prototypical example is explaining events through God’s actions. It doesn’t truly explain anything.

]]>