What is Pseudoscience?

I agree with your premise but I disagree with your conclusions.

You say love is chemical and I say it is not only chemical but it is also organic which encompasses our DNA and many other systems.

You name three chemicals and say, they are love.

That is science applied incorrectly.

The ancient Greeks had hundreds of words for love.

Charitable love, love of society, worldly love, paternal, maternal, erotic, reverence for the dead...

You are saying these are three chemicals and I disagree with your scientific conclusions?

Have you ever felt love in your gut?

Well your gut has many trillions of bacteria living there, more bacteria than there are stars in the universe.

A human can discern the difference between a multitude of different emotions. Just like a dog's nose is millions of times more sensitive than a human's sense of smell. It can sense thousands of chemicals.

Each human emotion is a soup of chemicals combining into various molecules throughout our bodies and being detected by a myriad of senses.

These senses can register emotions like, trust, fear, hypocrisy, violence, doubt, scepticism, sarcasm, mistrust, admiration, adoration, appreciation of beauty, amusement, anger, anxiety, awe, awkwardness, boredom, calmness, confusion, craving, disgust, empathic pain, entrancement, excitement, fear, horror, interest, joy, nostalgia, relief, hunger...

Are they all three chemicals? Because many of these emotions are within the realm of our sense of love.

There are millions of bodily reactions, nervous system triggers and impulses in the brain. Glucose, adrenalin, a plethora of vitamins, minerals and chemical interactions with our DNA that are, for the most part, still far beyond our scientific understanding.

I just wonder what your motives are to try and use science to relegate love to three chemicals? Regardless, your conclusions are inaccurate and erroneous.

It is like amalgamating rape with love. Oh, it's all dopamine anyway... (cynical)

Your premise is science but your conclusions are crude and inaccurate.

Many use science to draw erroneous conclusions.

Just like many use God to draw erroneous conclusions.

God may or may not exist, this give the idea of God some credence. But the God many worship is a God of their own fantastical creation.
A false God not based upon evidence but upon erroneous conclusions.

Error, build upon error...

People think, rather than know.

Such that we have a society of thinkers rather than knowers.

They switch between the two without the awareness or honesty that it is happening.

People suffer in varying degrees from this as I even catch myself using superlatives when I should be more skeptical of what I "think".

We need to separate what we know from what we think.

It is about honesty. Where science leaves off, there is only speculation...

Within that speculation there is truth and error.

The hope is that we not confuse the two...

One requires evidence and the other is subject to faith.

We must not confuse matter of faith with matter of evidence.

Evidence is subjective and faith is objective.

Many objective things are often detached from reality or truth.

That is because we measure objective things from our own perspective often disconnected from other more relevant truths.

Science gives you a set of objective, testable facts. The conclusions you draw from them may be "true" (however you define truth). Your conclusions aren't scientific unless you can develop am experiment to test them.. and a valid scientific experiment has possible results that would disprove your conclusion.

That's the definition of science.

Your statements about neurochemicals are scientifically incorrect. These chemical compound can be measured and their function in the brainnhas been well studied.

The rest of your musings about love sound good, and who knows if they are true or not. They aren't science.

There are questions that can be answered by science. These are questions that can be measured and objectively tested. In science the matter of right and wrong can be clearly defined by experiment and measurement.

There are important questions that can't be answered by science. These questions of values must be answered through less rigorously objective reasoning.

It aounds like you agree with me on this at least somewhat.

Google
Most neurotransmitters are either small amine molecules, amino acids, or neuropeptides. There are about a dozen known small-molecule neurotransmitters and more than 100 different neuropeptides, and neuroscientists are still discovering more about these chemical messengers.Nov 9, 2017

Comment
You idea of "well studied" leaves much to be desired.

And what are neurotransmitters?
small amine molecules, amino acids, or neuropeptides

Amino acids are the building blocks for DNA

You bandy about the word "chemical compounds" is if they are something like H2O or baking soda.

Neurotransmitters are complex structures that are created by our DNA to respond to our DNA.

You have used the words "chemical compounds" to draw narrow conclusions.

And while we are talking about water.

Water is a chemical compound. Simple, two hydrogen and one oxygen atom.

This is how you are perceiving a water compound.



This is how water actually is:







Love is just a chemical compound, science. (cynical)

I don't know what you are arguing. I am saying.

1) A scientific fact is objectively testable by measurement or experiment.
2) A chemical molecule is the same whether it is made in a lab, or extracted from a human brain.

Do you disagree with either of these statements? You are posting random factoids you found from the internet. do you have a point?

Starting with a philosophical "truth" and then inventing scientific facts to support it is an example of pseudoscience.

I agree with number 1 but only to a degree.

Objectively testable but are they subjectively testable?

A chemical molecule that has had a round trip journey through the body is not necessarily the same as a lab molecule of the same type. One has history...

Not enough is known about how the body changes the atoms in compounds.

Water outside the body is different than water inside the body.

Water outside the body is room temperature and water inside the body is body temperature. That is only one simple observation there are many others that can be inferred.

Water can go through altered states from a solid to a liquid to a vapor.

In each state its internal structures are changed.

Now if you heat water that is outside the body to the same temperature as the body there can still be fundamental differences. Magnetism, polarity and internal structures that may be unique to each person it occupies. Water takes on the human fingerprint. This makes it one of a kind.

To insist that compounds are not changed by the body they occupy is rather narrow.

The very nature of compounds are to bond and interact with other compounds in a complex way.

Water in a test tube is interacting with glass that it is in contact with, a human body it will respond differently and it is changed into a different thing.

This is because the internal makeup of the atoms that make a compound are complex in themselves.

Will you say that atoms are all the same when some form wood and some form metal and gases?

Each atom has a different structure depending on the situation they are placed in.

Are any two quarks alike?

So no I do not believe every water molecule is the same regardless of where it is. All water molecules share a structure but that does not make them all perfectly identical and unchanging.

There are some math equations that have two right answers.

And light is both a particle and a wave at the same time.

And sometimes things change simply by observing them objectively.

These are underlying characteristics of electrons which are sub particles to atoms which make compounds.

Are all neutrons identical, are all protons identical and are all electrons identical?

Science says they are. But is this a theory? I believe it is still a theory.

Perhaps the human body knows different but we do not have testing equipment to know the difference between neutrons, protons and electrons and how the body processes them into different cell types.

Are any two things identical? They would have to occupy the exact same space and time and their inner waves be in perfect synchrony.

I am not prepared to say that anything in this world is perfectly identical.
I lean towards not. That everything is unique in its own way, even if not the sequential unique birthdate they were spewed out of the big bang.

I was allergic to milk as a baby, so I was weaned on cold mountain spring water...

Are any two humans identical?

I don't know what you mean by "subjectively testable".

In chemistry we learn that two molecules with the same configuration of atoms are equivalent. I say the same configuration because molecule can have an isomer, which is a molecule with the same formula but different bonds which may lead to different chemical properties.

But we know from 500 years of chemistry that two molecules that are equivalent will have the same chemical properties. There is no chemical test to distinguish one from the other.

This is a basic scientific fact... but it is true. Which is why yout musings are false. You kind of have a point that you can measure the temperature, but even that won't tell you whether the molecule came from the body or not (unless you are standing over a recently alive body scapal in hand).

I can tell you scientific facts. I can tell you how they are measured and the experiments used to test them. I can do the math, and set up the lab... in fact I have done it.

You can base philosophical beliefs on these facts ... but philosophical beliefs aren't science and science has nothing to say about them other tahn to validate the core objectively measureable facts.

Humans are all equivalent according to the same objective scientific methods you have stated.

When you poke us, we all bleed. We combined and have offspring in the same ways.

But, male and female, old and young, educated and uneducated.

We are able as humans to see variance. Evolution within equivalency.

That is simply not correct.

1) I can list several simple experiments that you can do to distinguish one human from another.

2) You can't list any that would distinguish a water molecule created in the body from one created in the lab. Two water molecules are demonstrably equivalent. Every experiment you do on one will have the same results on any other water molecule. Well... there is a matter of isotope where the hydrogen atom can have an extra neutron, but with the same isotope there is no way to distinguish between water created in the body from water created in the lab.

The point is that this is well understood from 500 years of chemistry. Science is about things that can be objectively tested.

I can list one experiment, the one that is in the lab is in the lab.

The one that is in the body is in the body.

They both have different locations they are both different molecules.

They both have a different birth date when they were fused as molecules.

And when you try and look at the electrons in each molecule they are spinning in different synchronization.

They are unique unto themselves. Just like each human is unique unto themselves.

Apples and oranges are both fruit but they are also unique kinds of fruit.

One was grown in Florida and one was grown in Maine.

They are both food and are consumed in relatively the same way.

Both have seeds, both have Vitamin C and both are carbohydrates.

So they must be the exact same thing right? I can list a dozen experiments that prove they are both fruit.

They both come from trees.

Just because things come from the same subset does not automatically prove they are identical in every respect.

Each molecule is different and they have properties that are changeable and unique depending on where and what the occupy.

I can prove that two water molecules are not absolutely identical easier than you can prove they are.

Google
Water isotopes refer to atoms of oxygen (O) and hydrogen (H) in water molecules (H2O) that have slightly different atomic masses due to different numbers of neutrons in their nucleus.

Google
Water molecules exist in two different forms with almost identical physical properties. ... It is less well known that water exists in two different forms (isomers) at the molecular level. The difference lies in the relative orientation of the nuclear spins of the two hydrogen atoms.

Comment:
How many more differences are there?

Science cannot exactly say, so your supposition is not definitive.

Neither is my supposition definitive. But I am only speculating and you are trying to impose a belief using "science" as your proof.

If water molecules were all identical in their internal structure wouldn't they all freeze in the exact same pattern?

If cold can have this effect on water what is to say the human body can also effect water in such ways to change its expression?

It has been said that, "No two snowflakes are alike".

Again, simply incorrect in many ways

1. Some water molecules that are currently in your body were cret by your body. Other water molecules in your body came from the water you drink. Some of the water molecules in your body could have been made in your car, There is no experiment that will tell the difference.

2. Those ice crystals are made up of millions of water molecules. Each individual water molecule is equivalent to all of the other water molecules. There is no experiment that will tell you whether these water molecules were made in your body, or by fire, or in a laboratory.

Science is based on what can be objectively tested by experiment.

The answer is science.

You want to believe that human essense can "effect water... to change its expression". That is pseudoscience. Over 500 of chemistry we understand the chemistry of water. To anyone who has studied chemistry, what you are saying is incorrect.

Once you start making stuff up based not on experiment but on what is pleasing to you, it is no longer science.

I will give you the honest reply as much as many won't like to hear it:

ALL Science is pseudoscience when it comes to matters of Truth or Foundations!

Science by definition concerns itself with WHAT WORKS, and in order to be science it has to let go of any ultimate Truth that goes beyond our Anthropic domain of perception and CONCEPTION of what is "real".

Good Science openly admits to a pragmatic approach on what works not to how it is founded to work.

Speculating rationally onto how we can envision a glimpse into a metaphysical possibility which ascribes the parameters that gave rise to our Universe and its rules is already work of Philosophers and no longer Scientists...

There were, some still are, good Scientists that were/are also good Philosophers, but such mingle of so distinct sets of mind is normally the exception not the rule when it comes to fantasize a rational that is both credible and consistent logically!

Normally, when scientists try some sort of "literature" they suck at it. Thus for, they should stick with the method, as for applying the scientific method and solely the method there are not that many requirements!

Good memory, calculation, precision, commitment, unbiased analysis of data, and Experiment!

More nuanced personalities indulge in Logic literature and Cosmogonies that go well beyond anything tangible science can gives us!

These days there is much Metaphysics and Philosophy posing as great Science, but alas, that is because most of the ones who do it have no clue on the distinction at work in their own minds...

I think the biggest problem with science is a tendency to dismiss anything that doesn't fit their own preconceptions.

In the 19th Century people who believed in meteorites were dismissed as simple peasants because stones don't fall from the sky, scientists know that.

I agree with this (except for the weird use of the word "pseudoscience" to mean science). Science has nothing to say about Truth or Foundations.

Speak roughly to your little Max,
And beat him when he agreeses:
He only does it to annoy,
Because he knows it teases.