Re: Responding to pseudoscience was Re: A stronger will than mine.
5121 Student 09 (cm315c09@nova.umd.edu)
1 May 1994 07:04:13 -0400
Robert Grumbine <rmg3@access.digex.net> wrote:
>In article <2pm1g3INNgve@flop.engr.orst.edu>,
> But a common
>observation made when someone seriously argues against pseudoscience
>(i.e., starts pointing to research literature which disproves various
>points required by the pseudoscientific theory) is along the lines
>of 'There must be something to the theory, otherwise you wouldn't
>be arguing against it.'
So far no one has pointed out any research literature that disproves
the notion that man may have spent time in the water. Finding fault
with Morgan is a trivial thing, as is finding fault with a number of
proposals put forth by savannah theorists.
My question is this: Why is it necessary to argue against the
AAT with emotion, ridicule, and character assassination? Should
it not be sufficient to simply point out corrections and leave
it at that? What happened to scientific objectivity? As soon
as someone presents high emotion to me I become wary and wonder
why they are so defensive over such a trivial matter.
>That sets up the heads I win, tails you lose situation. If you (a
>person knowledgeable about the science) argue the pseudo theory, it
>lends that sort of credibility to the pseudo theory. If you don't, then
>people who don't know the science think that it means that the theory
>really is good, because after all, nobody disputed it.
I can use a similar arguement against those claiming to refute
a theory by calling it pseudo science. It is also a no lose situation.
If I establish a dominant paradigm, and ridicule anyone who presents
theories that fall outside that paradigm, how can I lose?
Eventually someone will notice the rigidity and call foul. When
they do I simply say, ah ha all psuedo science claims foul eventually.
All this proves is that anything that does not fit the dominant
paradigm is pseudo science.
Nothing short of hard fossil evidence will shift the dominant
paradigm and thus we wait.
My [pseudo scientific] 2 cents.
David Greene
cm315c09@nova.umd.edu
|