Michael Kane wrote:
> **I was really making a subtley different point about falsifiability
> **and pseudoscience. I wasn't claiming specifically that
> **pseudoscientists often ignore or try to explain away
> **counter-evidence (although they typically do), but rather they **formulate
>theories or claims that CANNOT BE FALSIFIED
> **AT ALL, by any conceivable data. That is, pseudoscientific
> **claims are not testable.
Yes, I see. My quick response would be this: it seems to me that not all theories that
we might consider to be pseudoscientific
contain unfalsifiable claims such as these. The first thing that comes to my mind is
astrology. From what I have read (especially
in periodicals such as Skeptic and Skeptical Inquirer), these claims can be falsified
and have been; but astrologers have simply
explained away these results or ignored them completely. Thus, I would say that, if
someone makes an unfalsifiable claim, and
especially if this claim is a central one for their approach, then this would
definitely characterize the approach as
pseudoscientific. I suspect, however, that not everything we might label as
pseudoscientific could be identified in this way.
Jeff
> --
Jeffry P. Ricker, Ph.D. Office Phone: (480) 423-6213
9000 E. Chaparral Rd. FAX Number: (480) 423-6298
Psychology Department [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Scottsdale Community College
Scottsdale, AZ 85256-2626
"The truth is rare and never simple."
Oscar Wilde
"Science must begin with myths and with the criticism of myths"
Karl Popper
