Science vs. Pseudoscience - Siska De Baerdemaeker
video description
Date: 2023-07-25
Related videos
Comments and reviews: 20
Shincheonji
Pseudoscience are processes, knowledge and people that are promoted to be scientific but actually aren t. Unfortunately, many people don t understand how science works, leaving them vulnerable to pseudoscientific ideas. Sometimes the conclusions of science don t satisfy our fundamental needs, so we tend to rather prefer the interesting stories of pseudoscience. Pseudoscience makes us fall victim to a confirmation bias and wishful thinking by confirming our beliefs, expectations and hopes. People tend to find pseudoscience more emotionally satisfying than actual science. The fundamental difference between science and pseudoscience is that scientists are motivated to understand reality as it actually is, and pseudoscientists are motivated to protect their emotional attachment to their beliefs, expectations and hopes. Pseudoscience avoids many of the steps that makes the scientific process reliable.
Pseudoscience tends to be done unsystematically in an unplanned, uncontrolled, disorganized, and unrepeatable way. It tends to appeal to singular studies as sufficient evidence to establish a high degree of confidence in a conclusion (avoids research syntheses and summaries. It tends to be based on untestable ideas that can t be disproven (unfalsifiable. It tends to assume that correlation implies causation. It tends to rely heavily on anecdotes, hearsay, intuition, authority, popularity, or tradition. It tends to be based on small sample sizes. It tends to have a conflict of interest between the funding source for the research and the results of the research. It tends to be compared to a few lines of evidence (gathered from one type of test and one field of study) by a few people and often these people are unqualified as well. It tends to contain little predictive, descriptive, or explanatory power. It tends to be based on many assumptions and go beyond what the evidence suggests. It tends to be inconsistent with laws and theories in other fields of study. It tends to appeal to supernatural causes to explain natural occurrences. It tends to claim that their ideas can be proved with complete certainty. It tends to try to prove ideas by specifically selecting evidence to justify a desired conclusion that is assumed in advance. It tends to manipulate the analysis of data to allow for a desired result to appear statistically significant (p-value hacking.
Pseudoscience tends to not rely on a system of checks and balances. It tends to be based on the effort of a few people and often these people are unqualified as well. It tends to avoid intellectual diversity. It tends to avoid rigorous testing and scrutiny. It tends to be unchanging and not self-corrective. It tends to go beyond the limitations of science. It tends to commit logical fallacies in its arguments. It tends to avoid discussions, feedback, and peer review. It tends to not be published in any credible scientific journals. It tends to avoid the scientific community but rather share the results directly with the general public. It tends to oppose the scientific consensus, focus on minor uncertainties and claim that there is a conspiracy to suppress their ideas.
reply
Pseudoscience are processes, knowledge and people that are promoted to be scientific but actually aren t. Unfortunately, many people don t understand how science works, leaving them vulnerable to pseudoscientific ideas. Sometimes the conclusions of science don t satisfy our fundamental needs, so we tend to rather prefer the interesting stories of pseudoscience. Pseudoscience makes us fall victim to a confirmation bias and wishful thinking by confirming our beliefs, expectations and hopes. People tend to find pseudoscience more emotionally satisfying than actual science. The fundamental difference between science and pseudoscience is that scientists are motivated to understand reality as it actually is, and pseudoscientists are motivated to protect their emotional attachment to their beliefs, expectations and hopes. Pseudoscience avoids many of the steps that makes the scientific process reliable.
Pseudoscience tends to be done unsystematically in an unplanned, uncontrolled, disorganized, and unrepeatable way. It tends to appeal to singular studies as sufficient evidence to establish a high degree of confidence in a conclusion (avoids research syntheses and summaries. It tends to be based on untestable ideas that can t be disproven (unfalsifiable. It tends to assume that correlation implies causation. It tends to rely heavily on anecdotes, hearsay, intuition, authority, popularity, or tradition. It tends to be based on small sample sizes. It tends to have a conflict of interest between the funding source for the research and the results of the research. It tends to be compared to a few lines of evidence (gathered from one type of test and one field of study) by a few people and often these people are unqualified as well. It tends to contain little predictive, descriptive, or explanatory power. It tends to be based on many assumptions and go beyond what the evidence suggests. It tends to be inconsistent with laws and theories in other fields of study. It tends to appeal to supernatural causes to explain natural occurrences. It tends to claim that their ideas can be proved with complete certainty. It tends to try to prove ideas by specifically selecting evidence to justify a desired conclusion that is assumed in advance. It tends to manipulate the analysis of data to allow for a desired result to appear statistically significant (p-value hacking.
Pseudoscience tends to not rely on a system of checks and balances. It tends to be based on the effort of a few people and often these people are unqualified as well. It tends to avoid intellectual diversity. It tends to avoid rigorous testing and scrutiny. It tends to be unchanging and not self-corrective. It tends to go beyond the limitations of science. It tends to commit logical fallacies in its arguments. It tends to avoid discussions, feedback, and peer review. It tends to not be published in any credible scientific journals. It tends to avoid the scientific community but rather share the results directly with the general public. It tends to oppose the scientific consensus, focus on minor uncertainties and claim that there is a conspiracy to suppress their ideas.
reply
Dismythed
Evidence is not proof and can be misinterpreted, even a lot of evidence. A best model with a lot of circumstantial evidence is in danger of being overturned. One thing can be mistaken for another.
For example, to this day, many claim there is lots of evidence for an aether, but every time they try to explain it mathematically, it disappears. At one time it was considered science, but now it is not. Aether got replaced by quantum field theory, and they have lots of evidence for it, but they are losing confidence in it as anything more than a math trick because it is largely built upon assumptions.
So some of us question evolution strictly on the grounds that after over 2000 years of the theory, there remains to be no smoking gun. Yes, adaptation has been satisfactorily proved (It was proved 6, 000 years ago with controlled breeding of both plants and animals, but not adaptations that lead to one form of creature changing to another entirely different form no matter how many generations. Even all the genetic research has only come up with dead end after dead end. When the smoking gun is found, then we ll believe it.
For me, it is not a matter of faith, but a matter of proof. I believe in God, but I do not assume he made things in a specific way. If he just created the means for life to evolve, then fine, but you still have to prove it. (Yes, science does prove things all the time, and evolution is something that could be proved, if true. So find it) Until then, the theory is pseudoscience because it not only relies on a model that has not panned out, but its evidence has been debunked on every level by the very scientists who try to prove it (Who should be given credit for intellectual honesty where they don t downplay it.
reply
Evidence is not proof and can be misinterpreted, even a lot of evidence. A best model with a lot of circumstantial evidence is in danger of being overturned. One thing can be mistaken for another.
For example, to this day, many claim there is lots of evidence for an aether, but every time they try to explain it mathematically, it disappears. At one time it was considered science, but now it is not. Aether got replaced by quantum field theory, and they have lots of evidence for it, but they are losing confidence in it as anything more than a math trick because it is largely built upon assumptions.
So some of us question evolution strictly on the grounds that after over 2000 years of the theory, there remains to be no smoking gun. Yes, adaptation has been satisfactorily proved (It was proved 6, 000 years ago with controlled breeding of both plants and animals, but not adaptations that lead to one form of creature changing to another entirely different form no matter how many generations. Even all the genetic research has only come up with dead end after dead end. When the smoking gun is found, then we ll believe it.
For me, it is not a matter of faith, but a matter of proof. I believe in God, but I do not assume he made things in a specific way. If he just created the means for life to evolve, then fine, but you still have to prove it. (Yes, science does prove things all the time, and evolution is something that could be proved, if true. So find it) Until then, the theory is pseudoscience because it not only relies on a model that has not panned out, but its evidence has been debunked on every level by the very scientists who try to prove it (Who should be given credit for intellectual honesty where they don t downplay it.
reply
S-ro
One issue with Homeopathy as an example, is that there's often a regulatory component that makes it advantageous for some legitimate products to Market themselves as homeopathic.
In the US for example, there are a number of cough drops which have a lot of zink in them labeled as homeopathic. Zinc has been shown to alleviate sore throats in some studies, but by sticking some random homeopathic ingredients in but it would be very expensive to have a trial to prove that and make those marketing claims. As a workaround, they can label it as homeopathic, add a trace amount of some recognized homeopathic ingredients that no one expects to actually work and avoid a lot of expenses. So in fact, it is a legitimate product, that could potentially help alleviate symptoms but is only being marketed as homeopathic because of a regulatory loophole.
This is more of a problem with the regulations making it difficult to make medical claims unless you stick some pseudoscientific label on it, but it is one example where something marketed as homeopathic may actually have a real active ingredient that does do something despite the label
reply
One issue with Homeopathy as an example, is that there's often a regulatory component that makes it advantageous for some legitimate products to Market themselves as homeopathic.
In the US for example, there are a number of cough drops which have a lot of zink in them labeled as homeopathic. Zinc has been shown to alleviate sore throats in some studies, but by sticking some random homeopathic ingredients in but it would be very expensive to have a trial to prove that and make those marketing claims. As a workaround, they can label it as homeopathic, add a trace amount of some recognized homeopathic ingredients that no one expects to actually work and avoid a lot of expenses. So in fact, it is a legitimate product, that could potentially help alleviate symptoms but is only being marketed as homeopathic because of a regulatory loophole.
This is more of a problem with the regulations making it difficult to make medical claims unless you stick some pseudoscientific label on it, but it is one example where something marketed as homeopathic may actually have a real active ingredient that does do something despite the label
reply
Micah
Unfortunately, scientists are still human, and they are often resistant to ideas that challenge their long-held theories, which they may interpret as personal challenges against their reputations. A classic example is the case of Galileo, whose theory of heliocentrism defied long-held Aristotelilian ideas as well as the theories of another astronomer, Tycho Brahe (who had reasonable criticisms of Galileo's theory given the limits of contemporary telescopes. We tend to remember the Galileo affair as a conflict of religion vs. science, but that's a massive oversimplification that ignores social tensions, scientific rivalries, and Galileo's own lack of tact.
It's also worth remembering that real scientific theories adapt to new information all the time, even if the core tenants remain the same. The Theory of Evolution is an excellent example: The core tenant (the development of different species diverging from a common ancestry) may remain the same, but the mechanics and details have changed considerably since Darwin first formulated his theory.
reply
Unfortunately, scientists are still human, and they are often resistant to ideas that challenge their long-held theories, which they may interpret as personal challenges against their reputations. A classic example is the case of Galileo, whose theory of heliocentrism defied long-held Aristotelilian ideas as well as the theories of another astronomer, Tycho Brahe (who had reasonable criticisms of Galileo's theory given the limits of contemporary telescopes. We tend to remember the Galileo affair as a conflict of religion vs. science, but that's a massive oversimplification that ignores social tensions, scientific rivalries, and Galileo's own lack of tact.
It's also worth remembering that real scientific theories adapt to new information all the time, even if the core tenants remain the same. The Theory of Evolution is an excellent example: The core tenant (the development of different species diverging from a common ancestry) may remain the same, but the mechanics and details have changed considerably since Darwin first formulated his theory.
reply
education
My entire family is into homeopathy. The local Homeopathic quack sells it somehow rolled up into a topic that the is very dear to the local population.
Since they agree with his political views, they believe in him as a person and by extension believe in his medicine and it even tends to work to some extent due to the placebo effect.
The quack has built a great narrative - 2Homeopathy works slowly but without side effects like those from modern medicines. For all simple problems like flu, common colds, minor joint pains etc. please come to me. If things get too painful and urgent where the side effects are worth facing, I will refer you to a good specialist myself.
He keeps exploiting people to the point that the placebo effect helps and the patients can bear the trouble. Then sends them off to real doctors.
The people think of him to practically a Saint!
reply
My entire family is into homeopathy. The local Homeopathic quack sells it somehow rolled up into a topic that the is very dear to the local population.
Since they agree with his political views, they believe in him as a person and by extension believe in his medicine and it even tends to work to some extent due to the placebo effect.
The quack has built a great narrative - 2Homeopathy works slowly but without side effects like those from modern medicines. For all simple problems like flu, common colds, minor joint pains etc. please come to me. If things get too painful and urgent where the side effects are worth facing, I will refer you to a good specialist myself.
He keeps exploiting people to the point that the placebo effect helps and the patients can bear the trouble. Then sends them off to real doctors.
The people think of him to practically a Saint!
reply
Brother
As someone who works with western astrology it is legitimately more faith based then scientific. It's also a historical thing. It's good for personal/spiritual development but it is not a means of diagnosing and/or treating medical issues. It's also not to be used as a social science, conclusively. however, it can be a way of self-understanding. Apply it to yourself, not to the world (and only if it resonates with you. To many people see it as a cult or just ridiculous when I ca be beneficial. Just don't make any important d visions based on it. Astrology can help you understand yours, but you are more than your astral sign.
reply
As someone who works with western astrology it is legitimately more faith based then scientific. It's also a historical thing. It's good for personal/spiritual development but it is not a means of diagnosing and/or treating medical issues. It's also not to be used as a social science, conclusively. however, it can be a way of self-understanding. Apply it to yourself, not to the world (and only if it resonates with you. To many people see it as a cult or just ridiculous when I ca be beneficial. Just don't make any important d visions based on it. Astrology can help you understand yours, but you are more than your astral sign.
reply
Perceived
IMO pseudoscience exists because some people do not trust the scientific community. Science is a consensus of experts. Experts agree upon a theory that is the best explanation for a question. Over time the consensus of experts will change and educational text books need to be updated. Once again this is just my opinion. When new information is discovered and the consensus changes some people in the general public lose faith in the establishment and look for answers elsewhere.
reply
IMO pseudoscience exists because some people do not trust the scientific community. Science is a consensus of experts. Experts agree upon a theory that is the best explanation for a question. Over time the consensus of experts will change and educational text books need to be updated. Once again this is just my opinion. When new information is discovered and the consensus changes some people in the general public lose faith in the establishment and look for answers elsewhere.
reply
Tuhin
You know, I have known many peole, mostly people who have been taking allopathy mediciens for a long time and turn to homeopathy as a last resort since they are not getting any form of benefits from their medicines. These people do seem to get better with homeopathic treatments and thats true for most of the cases. Now, like my uncle had been taking medicine for his psoriasis for a long time, it had no effects. Switching to Homeopathy did work wonders for him
reply
You know, I have known many peole, mostly people who have been taking allopathy mediciens for a long time and turn to homeopathy as a last resort since they are not getting any form of benefits from their medicines. These people do seem to get better with homeopathic treatments and thats true for most of the cases. Now, like my uncle had been taking medicine for his psoriasis for a long time, it had no effects. Switching to Homeopathy did work wonders for him
reply
Ridire
Reliably consistent provibility and theoretically replicable findings based on reams of trusted evidence easily traced back to definitive origin and cross-referenced against numerous reputable sources. Tangible results witnessed firsthand by informed experts. Science is based on objective evidence to enhance understanding, not to prove a point or win a conversation. Psuedoscience is based on easily digestible and pervasive hysterical group apophenia.
reply
Reliably consistent provibility and theoretically replicable findings based on reams of trusted evidence easily traced back to definitive origin and cross-referenced against numerous reputable sources. Tangible results witnessed firsthand by informed experts. Science is based on objective evidence to enhance understanding, not to prove a point or win a conversation. Psuedoscience is based on easily digestible and pervasive hysterical group apophenia.
reply
Md.
Taking about homeopathy, it is cheaper than usual medical treatments. In developing countries, most of the people don't have enough money for that or their doctors are not well trained. So many people die while treatment. The fear and the cost lead to homeopathy. Talking about me, I also would try homeopathy first, because most of time it works and don't have serious side effects. If don't I have to go for actual treatment.
reply
Taking about homeopathy, it is cheaper than usual medical treatments. In developing countries, most of the people don't have enough money for that or their doctors are not well trained. So many people die while treatment. The fear and the cost lead to homeopathy. Talking about me, I also would try homeopathy first, because most of time it works and don't have serious side effects. If don't I have to go for actual treatment.
reply
Jason
Global Warming extremist really need to watch this. They undermine their arguments when they say the science is settled because it contradicts the tenant of being open to new research and arguments. Climate change is real, but their stance and reactions make it seem like psuedo science by the logic discussed here. Moral of the story--don't be dogmatical. unless you're talking to a flat-Earther. ;)
reply
Global Warming extremist really need to watch this. They undermine their arguments when they say the science is settled because it contradicts the tenant of being open to new research and arguments. Climate change is real, but their stance and reactions make it seem like psuedo science by the logic discussed here. Moral of the story--don't be dogmatical. unless you're talking to a flat-Earther. ;)
reply
Marco
I feel pseudo scientists, or at the very least the people they scam, are spiritual, yet not religious, or at least not for mainstream organized religions. What they want is to rebel and take obscure alternatives, regardless of their effectiveness.
That's why there's alien cults, people who think string theory as universal vibes and stuff like that
reply
I feel pseudo scientists, or at the very least the people they scam, are spiritual, yet not religious, or at least not for mainstream organized religions. What they want is to rebel and take obscure alternatives, regardless of their effectiveness.
That's why there's alien cults, people who think string theory as universal vibes and stuff like that
reply
Lucas
I'm glad astrology was mentioned. I'm pretty tired of people thinking they know anything about me simply by asking what day I was born. My experiences in life made me who I am, not the position of the stars and planets. Astral signs are 100% meaningless and that's why nobody has been able to guess mine without me telling them.
reply
I'm glad astrology was mentioned. I'm pretty tired of people thinking they know anything about me simply by asking what day I was born. My experiences in life made me who I am, not the position of the stars and planets. Astral signs are 100% meaningless and that's why nobody has been able to guess mine without me telling them.
reply
Robert
What I have observed is that many people use their own experiences, beliefs and biases as proof of a given position despite mountains of scientific evidence to the contrary. Also people who distrust science, medicine, etc. will mistake this mistrust for critical thinking, when in fact it is mostly an emotional gut reaction.
reply
What I have observed is that many people use their own experiences, beliefs and biases as proof of a given position despite mountains of scientific evidence to the contrary. Also people who distrust science, medicine, etc. will mistake this mistrust for critical thinking, when in fact it is mostly an emotional gut reaction.
reply
Ken
Pseudoscience often revises its theories to describe conflicting perspectives and even introduces nonexistent new theories.
I have witnessed some theists employing quantum mechanics to explain the existence of God, which is truly preposterous, and the most alarming part is that many people actually believe it
reply
Pseudoscience often revises its theories to describe conflicting perspectives and even introduces nonexistent new theories.
I have witnessed some theists employing quantum mechanics to explain the existence of God, which is truly preposterous, and the most alarming part is that many people actually believe it
reply
Rafael
Sounds like most of medicine is pseudo-science, because doctor do not accept criticism. Ah and also climate change, try to say that the sea level has stayed the same since the 1970 s and all the pacific atolls that were going to desapear within the next ten years (and are still there) and the drama begins
reply
Sounds like most of medicine is pseudo-science, because doctor do not accept criticism. Ah and also climate change, try to say that the sea level has stayed the same since the 1970 s and all the pacific atolls that were going to desapear within the next ten years (and are still there) and the drama begins
reply
Snowman
I remember getting homeopathic medicine long ago for some skin problems. Yeah, didn't work. So gave up on that one.
But i heard one aunt of mine uses homeopathy.
Homeopathy still hasn't disappeared. But i think it's become less practiced now with the increase of educated people.
reply
I remember getting homeopathic medicine long ago for some skin problems. Yeah, didn't work. So gave up on that one.
But i heard one aunt of mine uses homeopathy.
Homeopathy still hasn't disappeared. But i think it's become less practiced now with the increase of educated people.
reply
Maria
I just thought about my distant family which cures cancer with vitamin C drips. sitting at a table, gulping beer and smoking an appalling number of cigarettes. Yep.
On another note, this animation aesthetic is quite. cute? I don't know, I like it nevertheless.
reply
I just thought about my distant family which cures cancer with vitamin C drips. sitting at a table, gulping beer and smoking an appalling number of cigarettes. Yep.
On another note, this animation aesthetic is quite. cute? I don't know, I like it nevertheless.
reply
calming
Even I had thought of homeopathy as a pseudoscience but it has been effective for my kidney stones. Can u tell me how my pain disappeared in 2 days even when I wasn't believing in homeopathy. I think there are something's that science even can not test.
reply
Even I had thought of homeopathy as a pseudoscience but it has been effective for my kidney stones. Can u tell me how my pain disappeared in 2 days even when I wasn't believing in homeopathy. I think there are something's that science even can not test.
reply
sotiris
As an Orthodox Christian I believe that religion and science are two completely separate elements from each other and should not be mixed with each other. Religion is the philosophical approach to life and science is the rational approach to life.
reply
As an Orthodox Christian I believe that religion and science are two completely separate elements from each other and should not be mixed with each other. Religion is the philosophical approach to life and science is the rational approach to life.
reply
Add a review, comment
Other channel videos
