Science or Pseudoscience?

Post Reply New Topic

Where do I start? Pseudoscience is the same old default processing that comes with every human brain: magical thinking. It's a stage of childhood development (around 3-years old) that developmental psychologists insist goes away - we grow out of it, and rational thinking takes it's place. This is so untrue! Most people are STUCK at magical thinking ( incorrect cause-effect; superstition, supernatural beliefs) and never become rational - that is, understanding that Nature operates on understandable, predictable laws; that there is a world outside our own minds and emotions that functions whether we believe in it or not.

Pseudoscience is the attempt by people who believe that a supernatural dimension controls reality, whether they call it God, a cosmic mind, a higher power, advanced aliens, various conspiracies (the Discovery Channel has done a terrific job of promoting pseudoscience) to legitimize their incorrect understanding of reality. They truly believe that whatever is going on in their mind / brain matches how the universe works! They claim that powers in this supernatural dimension can literally override the laws of nature (miracles) and depend on this delusion as the basis of their daily decisions. They believe that supernatural beings inhabit their brains, communicate instructions to them, and cause everything from the outcome of petty events like which high school team wins, to buying lottery tickets, to 'making' a certain person love them, to getting a job, to causing the end of the world. Think about it! How bizarre is this? The people who are most affected by this are immune from logic, cause and effect, reason, demonstration, or education.

Wrong. Not a shred of credible evidence. Not a crumb. Not a particle.

ruveyn

If you could reason with pseudo-scientists, there would be no pseudo-scientists.

Thank you for making a clear point clearer.

Though I do have to ask why you chose only to quote that portion when you had that point clarified after the selection. Was it to continue a mute point? Was it to start an argument that was never there to begin with? Why exactly did you feel it was needed to quote?

If it was for the sake of argument, I am sorry that you feel the need to continue after all this time since first posting. Maybe finding something that will make a difference (rather than running in circles) would be a better use of time and energy. Why waste it on something you your self have declared an unreasonable crowd?