QUOTE
Pseudoscience displays an indifference to facts.
Pseudoscience "research" is invariably sloppy.
Pseudoscience begins with a hypothesis—usually one which is appealing emotionally,
and spectacularly implausible—and then looks only for items which appear to support it.
Pseudoscience is indifferent to criteria of valid evidence.
Pseudoscience relies heavily on subjective validation.
Pseudoscience depends on arbitrary conventions of human
culture, rather than on unchanging regularities of nature.
Pseudoscience always achieves a reduction to absurdity if pursued far enough.
Pseudoscience always avoids putting its claims to a meaningful test.
Pseudoscience often contradicts itself, even in its own terms.
Pseudoscience deliberately creates mystery where none
exists, by omitting crucial information and important details.
Pseudoscience does not progress.
Pseudoscience attempts to persuade with rhetoric, propaganda, and
misrepresentation rather than valid evidence (which presumably does not exist).
Pseudoscience argues from ignorance, an elementary fallacy.
Pseudoscience argues from alleged exceptions, errors, anomalies, strange events,
and suspect claims—rather than from well-established regularities of nature.
Pseudoscience appeals to false authority, to emotion,
sentiment, or distrust of established fact.
Pseudoscience makes extraordinary claims and advances fantastic
theories that contradict what is known about nature.
Pseudoscientists invent their own vocabulary in which many terms lack
precise or unambiguous definitions, and some have no definition at all.
Pseudoscience appeals to the truth-criteria of scientific
methodology while simultaneously denying their validity.
Pseudoscience claims that the phenomena it studies are "jealous."
Pseudoscientific "explanations" tend to be by scenario.
Pseudoscientists often appeal to the ancient human habit of magical thinking.
Pseudoscience relies heavily on anachronistic thinking.
Pseudoscience "research" is invariably sloppy.
Pseudoscience begins with a hypothesis—usually one which is appealing emotionally,
and spectacularly implausible—and then looks only for items which appear to support it.
Pseudoscience is indifferent to criteria of valid evidence.
Pseudoscience relies heavily on subjective validation.
Pseudoscience depends on arbitrary conventions of human
culture, rather than on unchanging regularities of nature.
Pseudoscience always achieves a reduction to absurdity if pursued far enough.
Pseudoscience always avoids putting its claims to a meaningful test.
Pseudoscience often contradicts itself, even in its own terms.
Pseudoscience deliberately creates mystery where none
exists, by omitting crucial information and important details.
Pseudoscience does not progress.
Pseudoscience attempts to persuade with rhetoric, propaganda, and
misrepresentation rather than valid evidence (which presumably does not exist).
Pseudoscience argues from ignorance, an elementary fallacy.
Pseudoscience argues from alleged exceptions, errors, anomalies, strange events,
and suspect claims—rather than from well-established regularities of nature.
Pseudoscience appeals to false authority, to emotion,
sentiment, or distrust of established fact.
Pseudoscience makes extraordinary claims and advances fantastic
theories that contradict what is known about nature.
Pseudoscientists invent their own vocabulary in which many terms lack
precise or unambiguous definitions, and some have no definition at all.
Pseudoscience appeals to the truth-criteria of scientific
methodology while simultaneously denying their validity.
Pseudoscience claims that the phenomena it studies are "jealous."
Pseudoscientific "explanations" tend to be by scenario.
Pseudoscientists often appeal to the ancient human habit of magical thinking.
Pseudoscience relies heavily on anachronistic thinking.
When we are told that something is valid, that something has been "scientifically proven" I think it's very wise to consider the points being brought up here by Dr. Coker. Sometimes it can be rather difficult to distinguish between what is scientifically supported and that which is really only pseudoscience. In such situations critical thinking is of the upmost importance.
but the reason I find the vast majority of 'political correct' arguments so laughable is because they’re usually based upon the worse kind of pseudoscience.
nice one. I think Science is the pursuit of the truth.. no matter how unpopular. Science also provides a language we can all share and understand which allows us the freedom to break away from the constrains of each of our respected cultures.