Chronology | Current Month | Current Thread | Current Date |
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] | [Date Index] [Thread Index] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] | [Date Prev] [Date Next] |
From: Gary Karshner <karshner@STMARYTX.EDU>-----------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Pseudo science
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 14:52:36 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Kyle,
I have a little problem with Thagard's definition of pseudo
science. The
terms progressive and long period of time seem as imprecise as anything
I
would label pseudo science. Is Newtonian mechanics or electrostatics
pseudo
sciences? They seem to fit his definitions and creationism is not one
since
there is a tremendous little industry out in California churning out
papers
trying to explain the world in those terms.
I think Popper's testability is far more workable as it falls
back to our
Galilean roots, but it is the outcomes of those tests that is important.
I think we are all starting out like the congressman on pornography ("I
know it when I see it."), and like many philosophical discussions trying
to
define it after the fact.
Thagard's second test would have been failed by Copernicus since
he had to
abandon Aristotelian Physics along with astronomy. Aristotle argued that
the earth could not move since there would be great winds caused by its
motion. A point Copernicus ignores and Tycho tried to address with his
model. Often in science we have to start over to make progress and by
this
definition change it into pseudo science!
Gary