What is Pseudoscience?

When ecstasy emerged as a drug nobody knew what the long term consequences were. They knew what the long term consequences of heroin and cocaine were but not ecstasy, it's only now we are seeing what they are.

The same is true of gm food, and most respected independent science says we should wait until the full consequences of these modifications are known.

The rush to put these foodstuffs on the market prematurely is not driven by science, it is driven by profit.

The main opposition to gm foods isn't the science, it's the politics. One company, Monsanto, own the patent for pretty much all gm food. That is obscene, food should not patented.

And the people who are most affected by this are the most desperate. Subsistence farmers who just about make it as it is are given wonderful gm modified seeds to increase yield, all on the surface very altruistic. The yield increases significantly and their Fortunes improve slightly.

Leaving aside the fact that the long term consequences of such crops foodstuffs are unknown, it doesn't end there. The farmers are used to growing their own seeds for the next season, but the gm patented crops are infertile, they do not produce any seeds. That means the farmers are now reliant on Monsanto for all their future seeds, an extra expense that eclipses any benefits from superior yield.

It's the equivalent of drug dealers giving away free hits of heroin at the school gate.

I don't know any "liberals" so I can't speak for them, and I don't know what they think, but Socialists have no problem with science. The problem is that gm is owned by one monopoly, the whole enterprise needs to be brought into public ownership for the benefit of humanity.

Again disinformation, repeat the lie again and again.

Goebbels' playbook.

1) Scientific facts are objectively testable by observation or experiment.
2) Anything that can't be tested objectively is not a scientific fact.

That is the extent of what I am saying. I am not saying that scientific facts are "certain". I am not saying scientific facts are "true" in any philosophical science. Scientific facts are tested and confirmed by experiment or measurement. That is what science is.

When something that can't be tested by objective experiment claims to be science, that is pseudoscience. It is that simple. It is "possible" that water in the human body is touched by some ineffable "essence". But it isn't scientific.

The superlatives are coming from you, not from me.

Once you have made up your mind to reject a scientific finding that you don't like, you will find a way. They aren't tested, corporate corruption, they are "experimental".... The arguments against GMOs are awfully similar to the arguments used by anti-vaxxers.

I am not rejecting findings, I am saying that using words like identical are not helpful to science which is dependant upon precision and mathematical accuracy.

1 =1
2= 2
2 do not = 1

It is you who are using superlative terminology to compare things that may very well not be identical?

Theoretically, is anything identical other than metaphysically?

Do parallel lines even exist?

Is there such a thing as a straight line? Perfectly round circle? pi is perhaps to remind science that there are no absolute superlatives.

We use estimations and generalities and this is what science is based upon not absolute certainty.

Science is pure only when it uses estimations.

The majority of people are protected by vaccines.
Humans are the largest factor in climate change.
GMOs are still experimental and could present deleterious effects down the road.

(You sound like a Monsanto rep...)

BTW, many scientists agree that GMOs come with many risks...

Are we arguing about words here? To repeat myself again, science is based on experiment.

I can have you the scientific facts about water, I know how they are made and how they act. I can talk to you about all the experiments aboutnwater covering mass, charge boiling point, crystal structure... all of these are testable by experiment and there is no difference based on how the water was created. That is all objectively testable by experiment meaning it is science .

1. If you are arguing over my use of the word "identical" than you have a point. I should have said that water molecules will give the same results in every known experiment regardless of how they were formed (with the exeption of isotopes). Science requires terms that are well defined so you can test them.

2. If you want to say that perhaps water in the human body acquires some "essence"... I can't argue that since there is no way to test it.

I also can't argue with the claim that every water molecule has the soul of a water fairy. If it can't be tested that it isn't science.

That is exactly the hubris that scientists faced when the existence of bacteria was first proposed...

Water fairies in milk making it spoil, preposterous! (cynical)

Science is part intuition...

At least you can partly concede that proper terminology is vital.

I do respect your contributions to science and I also agree for the most part with what you have said.

Those difference in water composition could be vital or they could be for the most part inconsequential or of little relevance.

Someday a scientist will develop a more precise test to figure that out.

The scientific process works like this.

1) You start with existing knowledge
2) You start to think about a question that either hasn't been answered, or has something that doesn't exactly fit with the current theory.
3) You develop a hypothesis.
4) You define your hypothesis in a way that can be tested.
5) You develop an experiment that can disprove your hypothesis. You run the experiment and get results.
6) You publish the results, and you get feedback from other scientists.
7) Other people figure out ways to test the hypothesis (each test has the possibility of disproving it)... they publish their results and the experiments are reproduced.
8) After the hypothesis has been tested, and the scientific community believes it has reach the limit, it is accepted as theory and the existing knowledge advances.

Intuition fits into steps #2 and #3. That's where intuition stops. Intuition allows you to develop a hypothesis, but it is usually wrong.

There is a saying in science that "incredible claims require incredible proof". Scientists who understand the atomic structure and chemical properties of water are going to find it hard to believe there is an "essence" or a "fairy soul". These scientists are experts and they are almost always right.

But you are right to say that "almost always right" doesn't mean "always right". But that is why science is based on experiment.

Show me a fairy... and I will believe in fairies. Until then, I will believe in atoms.

90% of pseudoscience is crack head potshot bad fairy story telling period...

That said...10% of it is conventional knowledge imbued in the cultural l'air du temps social scientific consensus. Glorified, well dressed, pragmatical useful information sprung from a black hole of deep almost infinite ignorance back at the axiomatic base!

This is how civilizations mature...and yet, almost magically, in the process we look to how numbers work almost flawlessly with our own perception of what we NEED and CAN come to perceive.

We give thought to OUR problems and our problems alone, and our problems NECESSARILY reveal our contextual circumscribed domain of COMPETENCES in which we can operate some kind of useful knowledge...none of it is Reality with a big R, just a spec of what might be.

PS - That all said and explained, don't go with the old Fresco and JLNobody ignoramus and ineffable emptiness, don't go with monochromatic falsehood vs Truth...Everything is part of truth and everything has a domain of reality in Reality.

As I use to say dreams are real dreams if you dreamed them!
Phenomena are things to!

Truth vs falsehood, instead of truth within an ecosystem and context, is the territory of tribal domination and quest for power...a very pragmatic affair.

That which is false in one domain is true in another, but likewise that which is true in the best of our more vivid domains of perception is almost certain to be false somewhere else to some other intelligent species...

Most people don't really grasp the full extent of the concept of ALIEN...you couldn't see it even if it was right in front of your eyes and ears.

Physicists and mathematicians think about what would be constant across advanced alien civilizations.

We think prime numbers are a good start with the idea that any species that understands mathematics in any form will have to have developed the concept of prime numbers. We send prime numbers when out into space, and when we are looking for radio signals from intelligent extraterrestrials, we look for prime numbers (among other things).

I am familiar with Carl Sagan thank you probably before you knew he existed...

When I used the term ALIEN I was not referring to the normal kind we expect..we can find probably virus, microbes and who knows maybe some bios more or less like us, and there is something else that might not live in our time scales have slow chemistry or even an extremely awkward process that would totally render our perception of its existence null!

You see the term ALIEN is not be used with what is somewhat familiar, this is not Star Trek...there is a fair Logical chance that an advanced ALIEN life form would be totally invisible to our perceptive humanoid mechanisms.

We barely can understand our pets who share the vast majority of their DNA with us, go figure ALIEN...

PS In your defence you can speak about convergent Evolution and you would have a fair point, there is that to, but that said, as we are not to be the be all end all of an evolving process we have no clue what our far distant future who render us as a species, go figure advanced Aliens.

I never proposed there were fairies in water.

That is your own hyperbole...

I have proposed that there are hidden gears and machinery within water and matter in general that are far beyond our ability to test and even perhaps comprehend.

I then proposed caution in limiting potential.

And for this I am somehow fanciful and farcical.

This shows a bias at best and at worst a system closed to speculation and walls constructed at the precipice of discovery.

Where science leaves off and speculation begins is not an empty void but it is undiscovered science. And there is much more undiscovered than there is discovered.

It behooves us to dream beyond our own finite state of understanding and contempt. Even if those dreams seem somehow ridiculous or silly.

It is not like I am proposing there are particles like quarks that have magic wands and are called things like "charm" and God particle. (cynical)

You have proposed that science follows a predictable path and it is far from predictable and offen veers off into surprising and unanticipated directions.

This should give us pause, awe and acceptance of the wonderment of our own imagination...

Fairies? Who really knows for sure?

At this infancy of our preceptable knowledge, I am not going to bet against anything with utmost certainty.

So, fairies it is...

Max likes to pretend he speaks for science but he doesn't, he speaks for corporate interests which is why he denies climate change.

Vested interests Trump truth every time.

The idea that corporations can't do science is ridiculous given the fact that a large part of science is done (or at least funded) by corporations.

Good science is objective, independent, well-documented and reproducible. Whether this science is being managed or funded by Cornell University, or Monsanto, or Pfizer doesn't matter, as long as the results are documented and reproducible (the reproducible part is an important safeguard).

Izzy accepts the science done by the Big Pharmaceutical companies that say that their covid vaccines are safe and effective.

Izzy rejects the science that says that Genetically Modified Foods are safe and effective. Like the Covid vaccine studies, these studies have been reproduced by independent scientists and extensively peer reviewed.

If you believe that Political beliefs are more important than science, and if you are going to reject any scientific finding that contradicts your political beliefs... than what is the point of science?

Science only has value if it can contradict your pre-existing beliefs.

Sealioning is another tactic employed by Trump supporters.

A skin cell is different from a brain cell but they are both still cells.

You nailed it in the head right there Izzy...Max has very little of scientific or curious in his skin...mostly he is found of authoritarianism and has no hint of a dispassionate eagle eye observation of the facts.

Max is a conservative that goes against thinking outside of the box and confuses Institutional Authority with Scientific Authority.

If he was born on the XVI century he would be defending the Church authority and Aristotelians against Galileo...I am sure he disagrees and will come fuming over this but he has no clue on his own nature either, nor is he great at auto analysis.

I had a couple of beefs with his lacklustre IQ in the past, but I don't hate him I just feel honestly sorry for his position in life. He tries so hard and fails so often...

Quite true. And, I can explain an experiment that will allow you to tell which is which. They have measurable differences that differentiate them.

I expect he'll do a massive bodyswerve of the points you've mentioned.

Galileo was a scientist. He was one of the fathers of Physics and a pivotal figure in the scientific method.

When Galileo stood before the philosophers, he came armed with experimental data. He based his findings on experiments that were precisely measured and carefully documented from mechanics to orbital motion. Galileo didn't make things up out of philosophical meanderings. He observed, experimented and documented what he discovered.

I am on the side of Galileo. Science is based on experiment, and any scientist can describe the experiments used to test their theories. That was as true with Galileo as it was with Einstein and Feynman and Hawking.